The latest climate change / global warming Denier1 fraud is sucking them in like hayseeds in Vegas.
On Oct 27th Rick C. Hodgin posted “MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data” a distortion of the MIT news item “Levels of the greenhouse gas methane begin to increase again.”
Within a couple of days the fraud had gone viral and spread to dozens and dozens of Denier sites and forums.
It is an obvious and ridiculous fraud and all anyone had to do was check the MIT news item to confirm that it was nonsense, but apparently none of the self-styled “skeptics” bothered to do so. It has already been debunked at “‘ain’t no global warming’ spin – from MIT??” so for the most part I won’t repeat that.
What I do want to point out is what it shows us about Deniers and the supposed “unsettled science”, specifically that Deniers:
1) misrepresent, distort, and lie;
2) do not understand even simple climate science;
3) do not remember their own scripts, contradicting one another and themselves;
4) far from being skeptics, they are are so ridiculously gullible it is pathetic.
1) misrepresent, distort, and lie;
Hodgin states that the mobilization of methane “contradicts” climate change theory, which it most certainly does not (see 2); rather climate science predicted it as part of anthropogenic climate change. He also stated that “Findings like these tell us it’s too early to know for sure if man’s impact is affecting things at the political cry of “alarming rates” which is also the exact opposite of the facts.
The lie got further distorted as it spread to claim that climate theory said that only humans released green house gases (and eg here, here, and here), so this study ‘proved anthropogenic climate change was false’.
2) do not understand even simple climate science;
There is no way to know if Hodgin knew he was lying or is just a clueless twerp who didn’t know what he was talking about. Certainly many of the Deniers who commented on the story at TGDaily, Digg, and various blogs and forums seemed to actually believe that this contradicted real climate science.
Of course it doesn’t.
Methane release from any number of sources is one of the classic tipping points or forms of “Climate feedback” discussed in the IPCC Reports and the subject of books like “The Methane Time Bomb“; discussions going back more than 20 years (eg “Permafrost Melting and Stability of Offshore Methane Hydrates Subject to Global Warming“).
Nor is it some arcane or obscure branch of climate science. In the past year we have seen thousands of popular media stories about it. The sample chosen below are just a few of the ones that have appeared recently on digg.com, the same site where the Deniers are claiming this is not part of climate science.
Large Methane Release Could Cause Abrupt Climate Change, Global warming time bomb trapped in Arctic soil: study, Climate-Change ‘Time Bomb’ About to Go Off, Permafrost Perma-Emergency, Wetlands destruction to release massive GHGs.
The basics are explained rather well in Leo Murray’s animated video.
So even though this is basic climate science that has been right in their faces for many months, even years, the Deniers are claiming it violates the predictions of climate science.
3) do not remember their own scripts, contradicting one another and themselves;
When it was discovered that methane concentrations in the atmosphere seemed to have stabilized the Denier meme became that the earth was self correcting (here and here in 1998) and hence climate change was not a possibility or not likely to be severe, a meme reaffirmed as recently as Oct 29 at that bastion of Denierism SPPI.
So the earth is self correcting by stabilizing methane, therefore climate theory is false, but now that methane concentrations are rising it shows that climate theory is false. Everyone got that? Makes sense to Deniers, so why not you? As discussed before, contradicting themselves is not a problem for Deniers
It is interesting that junkscience has avoided the fraudulent GTDaily version of the story (going with Physorg instead) while Watts mirrors the GT verion verbatum.
4) far from being skeptics, they are are so ridiculously gullible it is pathetic.
This was a simple and obvious fraud on the scale of the infamous “NASA Backtracks on global temperature” or “APS Flips on climate science” frauds, yet the Deniers are eating it up hook, line and sinker. Far from being skeptics, these people will swallow any and every nonsense that purports to challenge climate science.
Indeed I think that many of the Denier scams are not really meant to fool the general public per se, but are really targeted at the average Denier. I say this because so many are so obviously false that only the ‘faithful’ would buy into them.
Small wonder that the entire Denier Canon is such incoherent gibberish.
——
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 25 … still no evidence.
1As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ’skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed above and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
PHOTO CREDITS:
Hook, Line, Sinker (How I fell for a phishing scam) by ToastyKen
Gambling Women, Trade Centre / Finland, Kotka by flydime
I spoke with Rick, the author behind the article, and unfortunately he also puts stock in that asinine Martin Durkin “documentary” TGGW Swindle. [1]
I swear, that thing has set action on the climate back two years on its own.
The former communications advisor to the Bush Administration, Frank Luntz, had the tactics down in 2001: [2]
“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed….Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
—-
It seems that everybody who comes forward with evidence which flies in the face of manmade global warming theories is hit with either a barrage of resistance in being heard (no media carries it), or they have attempts made to discredit them, their work or their character in some way. I had one person attack me personally for asking questions about 9/11.
For the record I do not place any stock in Martin Durkin. I wouldn’t know him if he walked up to me and said, “Hi, I’m Durkin.” I do place stock in the growing body of scientific evidence which demonstrates very clearly that things are not cut and dry on the issue of manmade global warming.
Are we causing harm to the planet? Yes. We need only look anywhere on the Earth to see that our presence harms much. Are we the cause of global warming? There is an alternate body of evidence (which is being suppressed in mainstream media) that suggests we are not a major cause, if we are of any cause at all.
This MIT report on an unexpected, surprising global rise in methane, following a decade of flat levels despite growing emissions by man during that time, indicates something else may be going on. You cannot have Siberia be responsible as is suggested (because of the atmospheric cycle), or it cannot be increases by man responsible for rises at the same rates world-wide – that would be unbelievable coincidence. The manmade global warming theories simply do not hold up to this data. It is baffling the MIT scientists. It’s just that simple. They don’t know.
I am glad my article was picked up and spread as widely as it has been. If you google the article title and look at the discussion taking place on many of the forums and message boards out there you’ll find that there is good discourse out there. People are thinking and, for once, being given the opportunity to see the findings of a report which contradicts the very heart of the theory of manmade global warming, namely that man is responsible for increases in greenhouse gases and that these additions by man are affecting our climate, temperature and future.
There is evidence out there which suggests a more realistic expectation exists, and that the Earth is part of a continuing, ongoing cycle of ups and downs in temperature – something that is most likely exactly necessary for its own survival for these “many hundreds of millions of years.” These up/down extremes have been so diverse that entire continents have been covered with ice while at other times temperatures were far warmer than they are today. And we have direct records of that from the past 1,000 years.
“We don’t know the answer” is the bottom line. Science is grasping at finding a solution. Of course man should do everything in his power to limit perceived threats like greenhouse gas emissions, but this MIT report demonstrates very clearly that we are not the sole cause. It further casts doubt on the very question of whether or not we are in any proportion causers when so many alternate data sets accepted by “non mainstream” contemporaries are considered – like those which can chart precisely the Earth’s temperature alongside recorded activity from the sun.
I wish you well with your blog. Please continue the discussions on manmade global warming. The more people there are asking questions, the more likely somebody will get at the truth.
Peace. 🙂
—-
Hi Rick,
Maybe I should have said “appears to put stock” to avoid misrepresenting your position, but that its the impression I got.
Also, could you point us to the “alternate body of evidence (which is being suppressed in mainstream media) that suggests we are not a major cause, if we are of any cause at all” because I am very interested to see if this stacks up.
Considering the levels of deforestation, air pollution, ocean acidification etc. I would be VERY surprised to read concrete evidence dispelling a link between man’s activities and rapid climate change.
I must admit though, I cannot see how you can reconcile a sceptical position about climate change while saying “Are we causing harm to the planet? Yes. We need only look anywhere on the Earth to see that our presence harms much.” The two positions seem to be incredibly at odds.
“I do place stock in the growing body of scientific evidence which demonstrates…”
That’s something an ignorant creationist would say, allude to a ‘growing amount of evidence’ without actually presenting ANY of it. [1]
—-
Thank you for responding to that absolute idiocracy of the viral spread of the MIT study!
Personally, I have spent the last three years working in non-profit climate change. Our party line is “the debate is over, the science is in”.
Regulation and change is coming to the country, on the state and federal level. Its happening in California and it will be happening across all states soon.
I completely agree that all the ‘deniers’ who don’t understand simple science, should stay out of the way as those of us with science degrees and published articles as we reform the system to a cleaner and greener one.
—-
I’d like to say that a lot of you guys saying climate change is all humans are not looking at all the facts. I have never seen anybody like that mention water vapor [1], which is the most common greenhouse gas (95% of the total amount). When water vapor is added in, humans account for only .28% of the gases, instead of over 5% with out it. The MIT article does mention the equal rising of methane worldwide, which does infact contradict quite a bit of the theories involving the Industrial Revolution as the main cause. [2] We already know the earth has gone through climate change before (see Ice Age), and it doesn’t happen quick.[3] We have no definite data of worldwide temps before the IR (actually, we still don’t really know the global temp), so how are we supposed to know it wasn’t already warming beforehand? [4] Rick has extremely good points, [5] and most of you responding are acting as if he just suggested that Hitler is more saintly than Jesus. If you don’t agree, fine. But at least get all the facts before you start ripping on a guy who didn’t say anything but what he felt to be true.
PS
rebo; an “ignorant creationist”? Really? If he were an ignorant creationist, he would be saying things about how God created man from the dirt and that evolution is heresy, not anything about global warming. Try to keep that stuff out of it. [6]
—-
Mark, if you haven’t seen any of the science talking about water vapor, the fault is yours, not the scientists. Water vapor is strongly included in all of this, but it is a feedback, not a forcing.
Water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas — but changes to its atmospheric concentration only last a matter of weeks, tops, while CO2 lasts on the order of centuries. However, since its atmospheric concentration is a product of temperature (which drives evaporation rates), a very small change to ambient temperature from a forcing (CO2, say) leads to an increase in water concentration, amplifying the forcing’s temperature increase, resulting in more evaporation, and so on. (This isn’t a runaway effect on its own; each increase is smaller than the last and it eventually reaches a new equilibrium until the external forcing changes one way or the other.)
Incidentally, this is why climate sensitivity — essentially, how much we can expect temperatures to change as a result of doubling CO2 — is as high as it is. It factors in fast feedbacks like water vapor.
All of this is very basic material — it shows up not only on introductory atmospheric science courses but also in introductory popular books on climate, such as The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart (highly recommended, it’s a great introduction) and Dire Predictions by Michael Mann (a coffee-table-style illustrated guide to the IPCC report, written for a lay audience). I really don’t know how you could have missed this, unless you weren’t very critical of your own positions.
No one’s saying that all of the increase in temperature is exclusively due to CO2, except those Deniers who throw up straw men about the science.
—-
It will always be like this. Whenever the truth is made known and goes against political agendas well in place, it will be suppressed to great extents, with the authors and conveyors being discredited, called out using strong emotion-evoking words like “fraud,” “absolute idiocracy,” “ludicrous farce” and “viral” to describe it.
The very nature of these strong replies self-evidences the truth contained therein, namely that what was being reported in the first place was accurate, for if it was just a nonsensical article written by someone of no importance, then it would’ve been silently ignored. This happens everyday on the web. But because this piece targeted a political agenda, and because it spoke the truth, it was attacked from all sides. And the same continues today for all who are advancing the cause of truth against the political agenda.
I urge everybody to question everything that we’re being told in mainstream media, especially when the side-effects and ramifications of the policies that “the experts” have signed off on with comments like “the debate is over, the science is in”, since these will affect EVERY aspect of our lives (such as the climate regulations which are coming to regulate all manner of production by man), they deserve the utmost scrutiny and examination. And alternative explanations need to be considered, considered at the very least.
It has been demonstrated, for example, that solar power could enable a 100% green energy source for the entire United States’ daytime energy consumption for less than a $100 billion investment over 10 years. Have you heard about that? Zero emissions for homes, businesses, cars, when powered by solar panels which today can be created for around $1 per watt, and that price is decreasing rapidly due to the purification research taking place for semiconductors, and the necessity of semiconductor substrates being far less “clean” for solar purposes. We have the technology today, and it is increasing rapidly.
Bottom line: we are being told a lie because it pushes an agenda, and this truth is there for all to see. And as unpopular as it is to say the following, that truth begins EXACTLY and ONLY with a foundation in Christianity, faith in Jesus Christ, and a trust in what He taught us about how we are to live (non-capitalistic, but rather communal in nature, as members of one body, one community, helping each other by the gifts we have been given being given back to everybody for the sake of and benefit of everybody), and in studying The Holy Bible (to know exactly how this should be executed).
We must not trust anything that is published in mainstream media, but we must seek the truth, first in Christ, and then in prayer about everything else. He will reveal it to us, if we trust in Him. Peace.
– Rick C. Hodgin