Skeptics Society debunks climate “skeptics” and other tales …

.BPSDB

• Climate “skeptics” get debunked on Skeptics Society site
• Gunter’s Gas
• Meme Watch: Carbon Black
• It’s not just length that matters
• A climate of change

.

Climate “Skeptics” get debunked on Skeptics Society site

In what can only be described as delicious irony the Skeptics Society has published a debunking of  the ghastly Oregon Petition. The Oregon Petition is the source of the fraudulent claim that (variously) 32,000, 17,000 or 60,000 scientists reject climate science. Misleading by Petition Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming? looks at the petition as a petition with no reference to whether it’s scientific claims are valid or not. He  concludes:

“through his Global Warming Petition Project, Arthur Robinson has solicited the opinions of the wrong group of people in the wrong way and drawn the wrong conclusions about any possible consensus among relevant and qualified scientists regarding the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. His petition is unqualified to deliver answers about a consensus in which the public is interested. He has a right to conduct any kind of petition drive he wishes, but he is not ethically entitled to misrepresent his petition as a fair reflection of relevant scientific opinion. He has confused his political with his scientific aims and misled the public in the process.”

Beautifully put. Of course the “science”  and methodology of the petition has already been eviscerated quite thoroughly (links from the RealClimate Wiki) and some more debunking may may be found here, but this was too good not to mention.

Gunter’s Gas

Lorne Gunter writes again

Lorne Gunter of the National Post remains a very strong contender for ‘the Denier who never get’s a single fact right’ with his latest contribution Lorne Gunter: Global warming numbers get a little help from their friends.

For the most part this is a thinly veiled rehashing of Booker’s “The world has never seen such freezing heat“, but Gunter adds a little extra, presumably to create the illusion that he deserves to be paid.

Gunter claims “There had been no reports of autumn heat waves in the international press.” Right, except in SE Asia, Australia, East Africa, Northern Russia and California … nothing. Apparently Denier spam sites count as “the international press.” Has the man never heard of a search engine? He then repeats the absurd “Recovering Arctic Ice” meme, just as Booker did.

What makes Gunter special is his willingness to make up absolutely anything . Not content with repeating the scientific fraud of Booker, he adds touches of colour like “a GISS spokesman was quick to point out as he toed the ground and gazed downward sheepishly.” Total fiction of course, but it gives his worjk that air of … well, a children’s book actually, but I guess Gunter knows who he is writing for.

Regardless, it’s really just a repeat of the Denier version of the GISS temperature error story, discussed and clarified by various folks linked at RealClimate Wiki. What makes Gunter’s ‘contribution’ noteworthy is that more of the facts were already available by the time he published, which he naturally chose to ignore.

Meme Watch: Carbon Black

Who knew?

Cornell has issued a press release with what I would consider the unfortunate title “Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon” based on a study by Johannes Lehmann et al published in Nature Geosciences. I say unfortunate for several reasons:

1) Only the abstract is available publicly so it is difficult to assess or comment on the research. I have little doubt that the research is solid, I just question whether it justifies the press releases claims about the climate models. Certainly the article’s title itself “Australian climate–carbon cycle feedback reduced by soil black carbon”is far less sensationalist than the Cornell press release;

2) This study, suggests that to the extent that the models are based on black carbon, they may be overestimates. It in no way addresses the extent to which the models are underestimates in other ways, eg mobilization of methane etc. Climate models include many, many complex factors, so an adjustment in one factor does not necessarily determine the overall accuracy of the model;

3) The study is based on inductive logic … they are not looking at the whether climate change is actually proceeding faster or slower than the models predict, just at the way in which carbon black has been factored into the models;

4) The study is based on only two savannah regions in Australia which varied wildly in terms the black carbon content of soils. In the abstract the authors are appropiately cautious about just how meaningful their findings are and quite correctly point out that the principle implication is that this finding means we need to look at carbon black much more closely in other regions.

So the study itself seems to be fine, it is the press release that is a problem. Needless to say the story has been picked up (eg Models may be Overestimating Global Warming Predictions) and is spreading through the Denialosphere.

Curious to note two aspects about the Denialophere and this story though:

i) If we combine the various Denier memes we get something like “The bogus models of global warming that are done by corrupt scientists and totally inaccurate have been found to be overestimates by the same bogus science and corrupt scientists.” They are are in effect validating an adjustment in something they claim is total nonsense in the first place?

ii) These seekers of unbiased truth and facts somehow missed “Attribution of polar warming to human influence“, “High sensitivity of peat decomposition to climate change through water-table feedback“, “Increased flow speed on a large East Antarctic outlet glacier caused by subglacial floods“, “Increased multidecadal variability of the North Atlantic Oscillation since 1781” , “Glaciology: Water slide“, “Half-hearted engineering”  as well as these “News and Views”: “Climate science: Global warming at the poles” and “Natural Disaster: Flood of evidence“, all in the same issue of Nature Geosciences.

I guess they were in a rush.

It’s not just length that matters

Johnny Rook does a very nice post showing how, as with sea ice, while the annual change may vary quite a bit the cummulative loss in glacial thickness has been catastrophic.

Global Glacier Thickness Change

“Thirsty Yet? Alpine Glaciers in Full Retreat” is a must read for the facts and implications of alpine glacier losses.

UPDATE: 20:18 Nov 21 “Lack of Radioactivity in Himalayan Ice Cores Bodes Ill for Millions” Not good. Very, very not good.

A climate of change

The Economist reports on “How countries’ greenhouse-gas emissions have changed since 1990.” We have made some minimal progress although no one meant to … sigh.

—-
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 42… 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.

IMAGE CREDITS:

Jumbo Cock Irony BBQ by liquidindian

pretty garbage truck by Susan NYC

carbon black by pinprick

carbon by fhisa

Advertisement