BPSDB Not that either of them are factual, accurate, or honest, and not that they say anything about climate change that is true, but precisely because they aren’t and don’t.
For those who do not know of it, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is a fauxcumentary produced by Martin Durkin which first aired (or more correctedly “erred”) two years ago.
It is probably the best known and most lavish of the Denier propaganda polemics posing as an objective documentary. Basically “The Swindle” attempts to undermine the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change.
In the days and weeks following it’s release the documentary was shredded as being a collection of misrepresentations, errors, lies and outright nonsense:
"The Swindle" just changed data they didn't like
- “The Great Global Warming Swindle“
- THE GREAT CHANNEL FOUR SWINDLE
- Swindled: Carl Wunsch responds
- Swindled!
- An Ongoing Swindle
- Monbiot on the Channel 4 Swindle
- The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle
- Swindled?
- Response to “Great Global Warming Swindle”
- Don’t let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
- A Global Warming Swindle play-by-play
- Swindled Again
- Another Species of Denial
- Channel 4’s Problem with Science
- ABC Australia’s Expert “Swindle” Debate on YouTube
- Channel 4 to be censured over controversial climate film
- for a bit of fun and common sense listen to Marcus Brigstocke Vs. Martin Durkin (audio only).
The OFCOM complaint about the errors and distortions in ‘The Swindle’ runs 176 pages – that’s a lot of nonsense. Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
My favourite part of “The Swindle” is Tim Ball identified to be in a Department that never existed [corrected] – classic Denier ‘facts’.
Solar Schmolar: How “The Swindle” misrepresented the facts about solar and sunspot influences.
Think about it.
It was, at the time, their best shot. Considerable resources were put into identifying and explaining the Denier’s best case, the creme de la creme of “skeptic/Denier science” … and it’s all horseshit.
The very best they could manage was an appalling collection of errors, lies, frauds and misrepresentations, presented either by a collection of charlatans, industry shills and ideologues, or by people who had been edited in such a way as to grossly misrepresent what they had to say.
That’s it. That’s their best. That’s the heart and soul of the Denier case, or was as of two years ago.
And now we get George Will.
Will is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist who recently published a column “Dark Green Doomsayers“, an error filled climate change Denier polemic that would be a blemish on a 1st year journalism student’s record.
Will then attempted to justify this travesty by defending it in the equally misbegotten “Climate Science in A Tornado.”
Will’s columns have been ably shredded by many, many people so I will not repeat their good work.
The titles of these reactions pretty much tell the story and there is obviously a fair amount of overlap, but many are well worth the read … and Backseat Driving (last link) has a suggestion for action.
- Washington Post decides that George Will is entitled to his own facts
- Unchecked Ice: A Saga in Five Chapters
- In a blunder reminiscent of Janet Cooke scandal, the Washington Post lets George Will reassert all his climate falsehoods plus some new ones
- George Will: Liberated From the Burden of Fact-Checking
- George Will’s climate howlers
- George Will and The Washington Post – Reputations gone up in smoke over global warming denialism
- The importance of actually reading what you cite
- Will, you give it up?
- WaPo ombudsman agrees that Will’s sea ice claim was wrong, doesn’t suggest a correction
- Noam Chomsky Excavates the George Will Memory Hole
- Will-fully Wrong
- George Will and the Global Cooling Scare
- GEORGE WILL EMBRACES PALIN-ISM
- Can George Will Save The “Global Cooling” Myth? Uh, No.
- George Will makes up facts in his column denying global warming
- The day DC journalism died: Washington Post is staffed with people who found ZERO mistakes in George Will’s error-filled denial column
- “Will” I be able to think of a witty title for this post?
- Where There’s a (George) Will There’s A Way … To Deny Global Warming
- George F. Will Takes on Science, Loses Credibility
- Hiatt, Will, On Global Warming Misinformation: Talk To The Hand
- Challenging George Will’s Reign of Error
- George Will of Washington Post changes the numbers on global warming
- Fight Global Warming Denial : George Will Distorts the Facts
- The Washington Post’s “Multi-Layer Editing Process”
- Facts Are Stubborn Things: George Will and Climate Change-
- George Will Lies; His Editor Does Nothing
- Science believers!! It is time to eat asparagus and march on the Washington Post!!!
And many, many more links debunking Will found at “Waiting for WaPo” (rediscovered late in the writing 😳 )
UPDATE Mar 30/09 See George F. Will goes platinum for a more comprehensive list of posts and articles exposing Will’s deceit.
I have never seen any Denier nonsense get so thoroughly torn apart – a Global Swarming? not that it isn’t richly deserved.
George Will is not a 1st year journalism student doing their first assignment, although the quality of what he produced might lead you to think so.
He is an experienced writer and researcher with the resources of the Washington Post at his disposal. Even so, all he was able to come up with was the usual frauds and lies.
As with “The Swindle”, are we asked to believe that Will, with all of the resources he has available, somehow couldn’t find “the real science” that casts doubt on anthropogenic climate change? Is that what we are expected to believe?
And are we being asked to believe that either Durkin and/or Will did not realize that what they were presenting was crap? As mentioned, neither Will nor Durkin are naive 1st year journalism students reporting matters they could not understand.
Now a mature professional, upon discovering that there is no basis to
the story they had intended, might either abandon the project entirely, or alternatively make their story about the fact that there is no basis to the Denier position.
Neither Will nor Durkin did so. Instead they went ahead with what they had. They both had the resources and time to get it right, more than enough of both.
They presented crap, knowing it was crap, because they were determined to do anti-science propaganda pieces and crap was all they could find. In some mysterious way the alleged “facts” that expose climate change science as false or flawed could not be found.
I leave it to you to decide which is the more likely explanation:
1) There is real, valid scientific evidence that casts significant doubt on anthropogenic climate change, but despite their experience, skills, contacts, and considerable resources neither Will nor Durkin were able to find it (hidden at Hogwarts perhaps?); or
2) They did find real science supporting the Denier claims, but for some bizarre reason chose to present blithering nonsense and hoaxes instead; or
3) They presented distortions, lies and frauds because that’s all there is to the entire climate change Denier stance. There is nothing else.
Which do you suppose it is?
So there it is. At the end of the day, despite being highly motivated and having considerable resources at their disposal, neither “The Swindle” nor George Will were able to come up with any credible facts or evidence; in fact nothing at all except the usual lies and frauds
For those who wonder whether the climate change Denier claims might have some legitimate basis, you have now seen the best they have to offer … what more do you need to know?
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 126 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS
Greenfyre's 
George Will is a journalist with a degree in philosophy (I think therefore I am). Why should we be concerned with what he writes? He could spend years researching climate change and still fail to understand it. The fundamental scientific background is missing. [1]
According to his wiki page: “His 1968 Ph.D. dissertation was entitled ‘Beyond the Reach of Majorities: Closed Questions in the Open Society’.”
It is almost like he is testing his thesis-or performing additional research- with this article.
—-
Correction – his education is in Politics & he taught political philosophy (I tax therefore I am?). Still – why should we be concerned with what he writes? [1]
Also, the article was an OpEd – meaning opinion. If it sells more papers, then he is doing his job. [2]
—-
George Will values his idealogy over reality.
When he spreads falsehoods instead truth, he is no longer a journalist. He has become a PR shill.
To me his articles have sunk to the level of the National Enquirer.
But reality has a funny habit of not going away.
In my humble opinion, too many climate tipping points are behind us and global climate events are rapidly going to overtake any sort of tripe that originates with George Will or any of his kind.
—-
Now the WaPo is pinned down in a bomb-crater of its own making, the walking wounded attempting an impossible defense of a vainglorious mascot’s ego.
There is a lesson here for the MSM to lift its game in climate science (and general science) reporting. They have helped create the low-information environment in which under-qualified opinionists can pose as authorities.
—-
Mike Kaulbars writes “My favourite part of “The Swindle” is Tim Ball identified to be in a Department that never existed with a degree that his alma mater University never offered – classic Denier ‘facts’.”
That is not a fair assertion by Mr. Kaulbars.
Here are the facts:
Dr. Ball has a PhD in Science from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England, – here is his certificate:
Click to access Dr%20Ball%20-%20PhD%20certificate.pdf
It says very clearly that Dr. Ball’s field of study was “Climatology” and his PhD thesis was on “Climate Change in Central Canada – a Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forte at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714 – 1852.” So that part of Mr. Kaulbars sarcastic comment is simply wrong. [1]
It is true that Swindle did not perfectly identify Dr. Ball’s department at the University of Winnipeg. However, that is not as a result of Dr. Ball misleading anyone. In fact he tried to correct the record but it was too late. He worked as a climatologist in the Department of Geography and had a separate lab which was dedicated to climatology work. He also founded and directed the Rupertsland Research Centre at the University of Winnipeg.
The difference between what is real on the latter case and what Swindle said is moot – Dr. Ball was in fact a professor in the field of climatology even if he did not specifically hold the title of Professor of Climatology (as climatology was a sub-discipline of geography (and so part of that department) at the time in the university, I understand). And Dr. Ball’s PhD was in exactly what his supporters (such as myself) say it was.
Mr. Kaulbars may disagree with Dr. Ball’s position on the science and that is entirely legitimate. But an ad hominem attack on his training and career is uncalled for, especially in this case when he is essentially wrong. An apology from Mike Kaulbars to Dr. Ball would be the civilized response in this case. Then comments on the actual science of what Dr. Ball said in Swindle would be appropriate, if Mr. Kaulbars has such points to bring up. [2]
Sincerely,
Tom Harris
ED – International Climate Science Coalition
PS: I should also point out that, contrary to those who maintain that Dr. Ball has not published in decades (CBC, take a bow), he has recently (December 06) co-authored a paper for the scientific journal, Ecological Complexity, with Baliunas, Dyck, Soon, Baydack, Legates, and Hancock entitled “Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor?” Dr. Ball is also co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 – McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the World’s leading authorities on arctic birds.
PPS: The repeated attacks against Dr. Ball’s background and credentials is a classic example of ‘ad hominem’ arguments as defined by Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem and is one of the tactics that those of us who want to find out what nature is really doing find abhorrent. Those who use this tactic (especially when they are wrong, as in this case) should be shunned by those of good faith on both sides of the debate. [3] I think the reason this is happening is because Dr. Ball has been so effective at influencing public opinion on this crucially important issue. As Dr. Ball says himself, “You know you are over the target when you are getting the most flack.” I hope he stays right over the target. We need more such scientists with the courage of their convictions. [4]
—-
Ah, Tom “coordinated local activism” Harris!
Strange to hear this from someone who, during last year’s Heartland conference, accused climate scientists of colluding with governments to scare people in order to gain power!
So tell us, Harris, was that an ad hominem attack, or was it a comment on the science?
If questioning the veracity of Swindle‘s reporting of Ball’s credentials is an ad hominem, then why did Swindle bring it up in the first place?
If Ball’s credentials have no bearing on the science, then why did Swindle even mention them?
Pleas demostrate where I ever “accused climate scientists of colluding with governments to scare people in order to gain power”. This is just made up.
Swindle made a small error in the identification of Dr. Ball’s ex-department – so what? Why is that so important as to warrant an all out attack? I think it is because Dr. Ball’s science is correct and so a diversionary tactic is warranted in some people’s eyes, just as Frankbi has done in his made up quote about what I said.
—-
In Slides 5–7, you claimed that
even while almost every climate scientist who has actually spoken out on the issue of global warming has asserted that it is a real problem. So what exactly is being implied here?
So once more, when Swindle erroneously cites Dr. Ball’s ‘credentials’, it’s part and parcel of a legitimate scientific argument. But when Greenfyre questions those credentials, suddenly it’s a “diversionary tactic”!
You can’t have it both ways, Harris.
I agree that Will’s article will have influence – but who will it influence?
Surely, this article will not affect any scientist. I doubt that it will affect any member of Congress; they vote along party lines & the President will push for a climate change act.
It will influence the general public; who, as a group, do not care to begin with. Out of twenty political issues, climate change ranked 20th in a poll – plus the percentage has dropped every year since it has been added to the poll.
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
If any political change takes place, concerns about public support must be diminished. The average person will only see the increase in cost of goods. They will never see any benefit.
A couple of takeaways from the Will Debacle:
1. there has been a massive, grassroots reaction to Will’s lies and distortion. He has been crucified in the reality-based blogosphere – and in comments at WashPo
2. a moment to appreciate the power of the internet. Without it, Will could have published his immoral propaganda and most of us would be none the wiser for how far from the truth it is
Good to see greenfyre has got the Denier camp riled enough that they’re turning up here to try and do some damage control. I took a quick refresher on the ‘International Climate Science Coalition’ (ooh, sounds official and all sciencey) – http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=147 – David Bellamy is on their ‘science’ advisory board! That’s all I need to know about *that* enterprise.
Re. Tim ball – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball#Dispute_over_qualifications_to_comment_on_global_warming – the phrase “no smoke without fire” springs to mind. I’ll look forward to Mike’s usual incisive, thorough and honest analysis of Dr Ball in due course. Also, with regard Ball’s cute but false analogy “You know you are over the target when you are getting the most flack.” – you actually get the most flack when you are badly wrong and / or dishonest – see the shitstorm Will is flying through at the moment, for example.
frankbi writes:
“In Slides 5–7, you claimed that
Governments believe that CO2 must be reduced to achieve political success:
– They think that the public will support CO2 controls to ’stop climate change’
– Most mass media support CO2 controls
– Lobby groups have successfully pushed the climate change agenda
– Science has little influence on climate policy”
Thereby admitting that his claim that I “accused climate scientists of colluding with governments to scare people in order to gain power” is wrong (since the above does not include that point).
Frankbi continues:
“So once more, when Swindle erroneously cites Dr. Ball’s ‘credentials’, it’s part and parcel of a legitimate scientific argument. But when Greenfyre questions those credentials, suddenly it’s a “diversionary tactic”!”
I addressed this in my e-mail. The point is so minor as to being moot and I think everyone reading this discussion knows it.
Having unjustifiably attacking Dr. Ball’s educational credentials, will Mike Kaulbars apologize to Dr. Ball and correct a similar incorrect assertion on another thread on this site? An honourable man would.
Tom Harris
—-
“Brutus is an honourable man.”
Tom, Mike has said nothing that wasn’t brought up in Dr. Ball’s lawsuit last year – a lawsuit contesting his credentials which he himself decided to drop rather than have the courts scrutinize his 8, 23, 28, or 32 years of professorship (accounts vary).
Speaking of credentials, are you still trying to hide your connection to the High Park Group? You tend to throw hissy fits when people bring up your lobbyist status.
—-
Let’s look at an example of Tim Ball:
http://www.orato.com/node/398/
“Global warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England, and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason, the world is not listening. Here is why.”
Tim Ball argues from a position of authority, listing his supposed credentials, and asks why “the world is not listening.” It is absolutely valid to question Ball’s credentials:
1) He is not “the first Canadian Ph.D. in climatology.”
2) He does not have a “Doctor of Science” from the Univeristy of London.
3) He was not a “Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg”
4) He was not a Professor at the University of Winnipeg” for 32 years.
Click to access TBall%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf
Click to access Johnson%20statement%20of%20defence.pdf
Johnson documents many more of these problems than the single article quoted above contains.
The Article in “Ecological Complexity” was a “viewpoint” and not peer reviewed. I suppose it is “ad hominem” (and not, say, exposing conflict of interest) to point out that it was funded by ExxonMobil.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626273.300-exxons-funding-of-polar-bear-research-questioned.html
Perhaps Mr. Harris can provide a single peer reviewed document that Tim Ball has published challenging the physics of AGW, thus making his repeated public declarations of fraud (e.g. “the greatest deception in the history of science”) relevent to public discord. His best shot is a book review from the early ’90s where he claimed that Mauna Loa CO2 readings had recently “plummeted.” “Plummeting CO2 readings in the early ’90s” should be fairly easy to prove, right?
—-
Mike, your continued sarcasm is not constructive. Protecting the environment is too important a goal to stoop to such levels. I am not going to bother with this site for a while but may check in later in spring to see if the tenor of the debate has risen. Right now it is not worth reading.
Tom out
—-
Goodbye, Tom Harris. Hope you enjoyed your short visit. Be sure you’ll be watched for at the upcoming Heartland Jolly, with particular attention to how far you stoop for your sponsors. Grasp your ankles and smile …
Thanks for demonstrating my point, cugel. Mike, with friends like cugel and Frankbi, …
No answer for cce Mr Harris?
Still here, Mr Harris? I thought you were stalking off in high dudgeon.
Any response for cce?
Trouble is, Brutus actually was. Got anything from MacBeth? Hamlet perhaps? Deniers as sponges mouthed by the powerful?
Sadly, no. I actually despise Shakespeare and pretty much the entire study of literature. (Long story; boils down to a functional understanding of language and a disrespect for bullshit. One too many professors talking about “what the author was trying to say” instead of what he actually said.) I just chose that line because it seemed that Harris was trying to mock through ironic compliments, much as Anthony was.
As for Mr. Harris, I await his response to cce’s excellent challenge, with my own question on the backburner. For others looking for the answers (Tom G, cugel), I suggest a little less outright provocateur mockery: being on the defensive doesn’t aid anyone in speaking.
Nice piece, as always.
Might I suggest some additions to your list:
My latest was on the Ombudsman … http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/02/28/washpost-ombudsman-steps-up-and-steps-in-it-plus-another-will-fabrication/
Something before Friday’s publication:
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/02/26/will-directly-lies-again-and-again-and-again/
etc …
For another, overlapping list, see: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/02/21/washpost-embraces-will-ful-deceit/ (note value / import of this being a Post pattern, not isolated to Will)
—-
Hey Tom, your missing the point.
I thought I was polite.
—-
Tom Harris,
Your feigned, sanctimonious offence is not convincing. You insult us with your distortion, lies and wilful ignorance – amplified a million times because we’re not debating some ‘minor’ issue. We’re condemning future generations to a vastly reduced biosphere. We’re eradicating species at an increasing rate.
How stupid do you think we are that you suggest *you* and your cohorts are interested in “protecting the environment”? I genuinely wonder how people like you sleep at night.
The science is in – it came in decades ago. There is no credible debate. There is just a collection of right wing ideologues, largely funded by immoral mega-corps who will sink to any depth to maintain the status quo and line their own, already bulging pockets.
And anyone who thinks you’re being treated harshly just needs to read your ‘core principles’: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=67 Your organisation is anti-science, anti-reality, anti-environment.
As far as I’m concerned, you are a loathsome individual, not deserving of respect.
*Now* you’ve got something to whine about.
P.S. Tom Harris, are you going to respond to cce’s comment? An honourable man would.
P.P.S. For anyone who’s a little rusty on their Shakespeare and unsure about Brian D’s “Brutus is an honourable man.”, Joe Romm explains – http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/17/abraham-lincoln-irony-cooper-union-shakespeare-marc-antony/
Mr Harris seems to have left us.
I am mildly disappointed since I was really curious what sort of response he would have to cce.
I say mildly since to me a lack of response is extremely telling on its own…
—-
🙂
Brian D : I certainly had no intention of being polite, but since Mr Harris had already (apparently) flounced off claiming the moral high ground without responding to cce I don’t think I influenced his decision. These people are really starting to annoy me; if I over-stepped the mark I aologise to all.
And I simply couldn’t resist the “stoop” hook …
Mike, I didn’t check all the links above so this may be redundant, but re Ball note the critical distinction between the fields of geography and physical geography and the tell-tale amount of time required for that UofL PhD. Also note that fiddling with modern-era weather records isn’t exactly hard work compared to what’s involved with real climate reconstructions.
Re Will, John Quiggin weighs in (and will do so again tomorrow) from the POV of a columnist, concluding that not only was Will wrong, his column was in signifcant part a phoned-in rehash of Will’s own prior material. Of course Will’s job can perhaps be described as endlessly repeating the eternal verities of conservatism, but in that case one would think the Post could save themselves a lot of money by just reprinting his old columns.
Actually it would appear that Will was pretty accurate. There appear to be four point he is being attacked on. The first is the 70’s global cooling. Well, in the words of the study that was to debunk it:
Peterson, Connolley, Fleck THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Now using the standards listed in the paper, there is no concensus for AGW now. Seems they had to be very convoluted to have a definition which AGW could not ever meet.
Second, Arctic SeaIce growth. Arctic SeaIce went from record lows to within 3 percent of 1979 levels. Logically, the rebound has to be record setting so how was he wrong?
Third, Artic SeaIce extent is with 3 percent of 1979 satellite records. So what is the issue with saying that 1979 ice extent and 2009 are equal. He was correct since it has now been shown that the sensor was failing and he was right.
Finally, there has been no warming this decade. The only way to get any warming this decade is to impose a thirty year trend average on it. The reality is that if you look at the acutal numbers from say GISS, there is no warming this decade. Even the WMO chart (a) global temperature shows that cooling ended 2000. Not the line that they drew but the actual bars on the chart.
So, what did Will get wrong? You may not agree with him but for a reporter in a fluff piece, he got his fact pretty accurate.
As I posted over at Joe Romm’s just before Vernon got booted from there, Vernon is the equivalent of someone who thinks if he can dislodge a pebble from the capping stone of one pyramid, then every pyramid in Egypt will collapse.
George Monbiot – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/03/climate-change-poles – is the latest to give George ‘Facts Are Flexible’ Will a good kicking:
Actually, just noticed Vernon’s penultimate paragraph:
> Finally, there has been no warming this decade.
Do we need to suffer this idiocy / distortion / dishonesty here, Mike? We can get our fill of it over at Digg and other unmoderated corners of the toobz.
Mike, I am strongly in agreement with you, and disagreement with George Will.
However, editorially:
The Will quote specifies “global sea ice levels;” your fact check with the Arctic Climate Research Center refers to “Arctic sea ice.”
Apples & oranges–or at least, apples & tree-fruit.
DavidONE,
There has been no warming this decade. Look at the numbers for this decade. (GISS Global)
2001 .48
2002 .56
2003 .55
2004 .49
2005 .62
2006 .54
2007 .57
You can see the same thing if you do more than look at the trend line on the WMO’s report graph (a).
I notice that you do not disagree with the facts just with me. To bad for George M. that the sensor that his information was based on was broken and it turns out he was given faulty facts. Who knew.
So I fall back on where did Will get his facts wrong?
Yes, I got banned from Joe Rohm’s for pointing out that it is an urban legend that you can put a frog in a pot of water and slowly heat it till the frog dies without it jumping out.
There are things I do not know or do not understand and I come to places like this to learn. There are studies I can look up and read for myself.
The very study that seeks to prove there is no concensus for global cooling in 1972 did so by using a definition of concensus that as long a one scienist publishs on paper that does not agree with the prevaling concensus, then there is no concensus. That pretty much means there is never a concensus about anything.
I hope I am not banned from here. I like this site. While I do not fully agree with CO2 AGW, I do believe in preserving the environment which I believe is the point of this site. Or while I believe that CO2 causes warming, the fact that little is known about the most the climate drivers means that I have no faith that CO2 will have positive feedbacks without some supporting science.
1. “no warming this decade”
A distortion / statistical irrelevance designed to confuse the unwary – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
2. “sensor broken – faulty facts”
“The temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades.” – http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/022609.html
3. “I got banned from Joe Rohm’s [sic] for frog comment”
Liar.
4. “I come to places like this to learn.”
No, you come to spread your lies and distortion – or is it real idiocy? Maybe it’s just for attention? Don’t know. Don’t care.
5. “concensus [sic] for global cooling in 1972 did so by using a definition of … blah blah”
Liar.
6. “I hope I am not banned from here.”
You’re noise. Distraction from scientifically literate people conversing. Go back to Watts, Climate Audit and the other holes that you get your bullshit from.
7. “…little is known about the most the climate drivers blah blah”
You’re confusing your personal ignorance with what climate scientists know.
And that’s why (I believe) you should be banned – you’re just a waste of people’s time because your oh-so-reasonable-sounding spiel is actually lies, distortion and idiocy and needs to be debunked otherwise the unwary might think there is truth in the shit you peddle.
DavidONE,
I see you cannot point out where I am wrong so you attack me rather than discuss the facts. As Kevin pointed out Will said global sea ice levels, I missed that too. The Global sea ice levels have are in fact equal to are higher than they were in 1979. I have to say that pointing to the Arctic and ignoring the fact that the Antarctic seems to be an error many made including myself. The GLOBAL SEA ICE level does meet or exceed 1979.
Less see about your arguements:
1. from 2001 to 2008 the change is .09C which is less than the error so cannot be proven to be more than NO CHANGE. Guess that means I am not lying and I am not wrong.
2. As I Kevin pointed out the global sea ice level is equal to or higher than it was in 1979. The sensor was broken if you bothered to check and they misreported 1/2 million km2 in the Arctic.
3. Well, I made the frog comment and then was banned. I guess I could ask why but it seemed pretty cause an effect.
4. Well, since your the mind reader and I am not, I will not attempt to guess how you know why I do anything.
5. Read the paper which is the basis that global cooling in the 70s was not a consensus. I know I did and I posted a quote from the study. I guess that means I am not a liar.
6. Lucky for me your not in control. Most things I read, learn a bit about and never post. Some like this topic I read, look up the source documentation and say… this is not right. Will was basically right in his statements. Some things I read, do not understand and post to get additional information. You have not supplied any additional information all you do is chant liar. If someone has information other than what I presented that offers a different view, then point the way so I can read it.
7. You are I hope ignorant and do not know any better. Ignorance is fine, we all suffer from it and that is where learning, sharing ideas, and reading is the cure. How about you read the IPCC TAR 4 where they firmly state that we know little to very little about any climate drivers except GHGs. Oh and they admit that they do not know the H2O cycle either so we do not know how that drives climate. The CONSENSUS is that there is more we do not know than there is that we do.
I still hope I am not banned. I do not believe I have done anything that would warrant it.
DavidONE, just to be different, how about you cite ANYTHING that proved me wrong rather than just name calling.
—-
“The very study that seeks to prove there is no concensus for global cooling in 1972 did so by using a definition of concensus that as long a one scienist publishs on paper that does not agree with the prevaling concensus, then there is no concensus.”
That’s pure bullshit, Vernon. For the period from 1965 to 1979 ” The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.”
You’re a liar.
Click to access 131047.pdf
> I see you cannot point out where I am wrong…
I did. The acting of writing something does not automatically make it true. That’s the game you play – bare-faced lying and hope no one spots it.
> …global sea ice level…
More obfuscation to confuse the unwary – most probably originating from that lying weasel, Asher at DailyTech.
> …sensor was broken…
You can say that as many times as you want – it does not change the fact it is an irrelevance to the accuracy of the data that has been supplied by http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/022609.html. Again, just another attempt to spread FUD where none exists.
> Well, I made the frog comment…
You also used the word ‘the’ – do you think that was also why Romm banned you?
> global cooling consensus
Twist and distort all you want – http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+cooling+consensus+1970s+debunked
There’s a reason you’ve already been banned by Joe Romm and Gavin Shcmidt and who knows else – it’s not for mentioning frogs and it’s not because you “just want to learn” – it’s because you play a sneaky, intellectually dishonest, weasely game of distortion, lying with lots of small truths and spreading FUD that has been debunked a thousand times. You’ll fool some people, but not me.
That’s all the time I’m going to waste on you – I’ve decided this year to focus my battles on only two sites and retain my sanity by only reading climate blogs that don’t allow people like you to pollute the comment threads with never-ending streams of lies masquerading as ‘honest debates’.
Well DavidONE I guess you just like to rant. Please show where the global sea ice, not Arctic sea ice, is below the 1979 level for global sea ice.
Here are the facts per NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/global.html#seaice
Antarctic sea ice is up 23.6 percent from 1979 levels
Arctic sea ice is down 8 percent from 1979 levels
Global sea ice is up. I did get it wrong earlier because I was looking at the NOAA charts and forgot that they used the 1979-2000 mean as the baseline.
Sensor was broken. I know you do not actually research anything you just seem to repeat your mantra but if you go to:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/022609.html
and read the article
As to why I was banned from that site. All I know is I pointed out an urban legend was being used as an example and after that I was banned. No warning, nothing other than what I posted no longer appeared and I asked via email if I was banned and got the single word answer of yes back.
I am not banned on RC.
As for global cooling not being the consensus in the 1970
Peterson, Connolley, Fleck THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
The principle work that refutes that is PCF. PCF’s study uses the definition:
Consensus – when there are no papers being published that do disagree, i.e. 100 percent of everyone must agree on the same thing for consensus.
Using that definition, there has never been consensus in climate science – or much else for that matter. Even in the PCF study they say that global cooling trend was widely accepted.
Gee, all those articles point back to this study which says that… .
I do not bother lying, if I am wrong, which I am at times, I point it out or own up to it. As to not allowing people like me to voice questions and concerns, that does not sound like science but I am sorry if I am violating the tenets of your religion. I hope I never reach the point that I only want to read about science that only agrees with my beliefs because when we quit questioning science, it stops being science and if I wanted religion I would go to church.
Vernon, Will’s claim was that a FUTURE cooling – ie an ice age -was the consensus in the 70s. The quote you rely on says no such thing: it reports the OBSERVED mid-century cooling (which scientists honestly reported and studied), and highlights ONE sudy (not a consensus) that made a cooling prediction. The rest of the paper demonstrates that there was no consensus, but an emerging one was “warming”.
Note that scientific consensus does NOT require 100% agreement. There are still papers published today disputing the nature of gravity. The consensus in particle physics is the Standard Model, and even it is disputed (remember the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? It’s trying to DISPROVE the Standard Model). Likewise for the universe’s fate: consensus is ever-expanding, but “big crunch” papers are still published. This wouldn’t be thecase if your view on consensus were true.
Oh, that sensor? Read David’s link. The sensor glitch does NOT affect the long-term trend.
You fail.
BrianD,
First, a misunderstanding to clear up, I did not say that was my view of consensus; I said that was the one that was apparent in PFC’s paper. PFC says that global cooling was widely accepted which just happens to be the definition of consensus (def. general agreement). I myself fail to understand how PFC can say that global cooling was widely accepted (pretty much the definition of consensus) and then go on to say that since papers were published that did not agree with global cooling it was not the consensus. This study appears to be the basis for all the articles, etc that show that there was not a consensus on global cooling. Trust me I did not make this up. Based on my reading of this study the keystone of the no consensus position, Will is not wrong to say there was consensus on global cooling.
Now for my personal opinion – consensus is meaningless in science. Historically, the consensus has generally been wrong and the greater the consensus, the longer and harder it is for new ideas, concepts, perspectives, and paradigms to appear. For example, does an increase in CO2 (doubling) in the atmosphere lead to general warming; yes. Are there positive feedbacks that could lead more warming than the CO2 doubling would cause? That is the big question and based on my reading and the IPCC reports; there is not enough science in place for us to know. I wish there were but there is not.
I did look at DavidONE’s link and if you read the articles they basically point back to PFC as proving that there was not consensus. If I am wrong, please point out where I am wrong, and yes a study or something to back up your position other than to say I am a liar would be nice.
My point is that Will fairly accurate in his paper. You may not agree with him, I seldom do, but his basic facts do check out. If you want to fault him don’t do it for something that just feeds ammunition to your enemies.
—-
As Tom G notes and quotes:
“… you can certainly post long-debunked disinformation on the web, but just not here. It is a calculated effort to confuse some and waste the time of others” and AS PER MY EARLIER COMMENT
LAST WARNING
Mike
From Climate Progress…
The Topic was: Hansen vs Christy, Round 2
posted February 24th 2009.
“David B. Benson says:
February 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Joe Romm — Do we have to put up with Vernon?
[JR: No.
Sorry I have been so busy blogging that I let this go so far. As I have said many times, you can certainly post long-debunked disinformation on the web, but just not here. It is a calculated effort to confuse some and waste the time of others]”
All of Vernon’s comments were deleted, but if the other comments directed to Vernon are read they are not about a frog. They are about Vernon’s attempt to use the Wegman Report to dispute the Mann Hockey Stick Graph.
Thanks, Tom – I didn’t have the time / inclination to go find the relevant post at Joe’s blog, although I knew roughly what the conversation was.
Also, somewhere at Joe’s place (or was it here?) Vernon admitted that his posts at RealClimate were not being accepted – so again he’s playing a dishonest game of semantics by claiming that he’s not banned from RC.
As Joe pointed out “It is a calculated effort to confuse some and waste the time of others” – that’s Vernon’s game which should be evident to all by his obsession with anything that casts doubt on data or interpretation of the results – even *after* it is demonstrated to be irrelevant / inconsequential. He’s not here to learn, as he claims, he’s here to spread FUD.
His weasely sophistry is just another nail in his coffin of intellectual credibility.
[…] touches on a point that Greenfyre made re: the whole George Will flap- what’s remarkable about this is that this is their best and […]
For assessing the (non)-validity of the contention that 1979 sea ice levels are comparable to today’s, I think the best single readily-available data is from Cryosphere Today, the U. of Illinois site. Here is the global sea-ice graph from 1979 to the present:
Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t lend much support to George Will’s quoted contention. The Arctic extent crash is dominating the smaller Antarctic increase for most of the yearly cycle.
It also probably bears repeating that the Arctic ice trend deserves the attention it gets because it will create much more albedo feedback than in the Antarctic case, and because the change is larger in magnitude in any case.
I suppose that I should also say that much of the confusion arises when monthly data is used in comparison with a long-term baseline. (Gavin Schmidt made this point on Real Climate.) Once again, apples and tree-fruit (cherries, perhaps?)
This is true because the yearly cycles in both Antarctic and Arctic are *much* larger than the trends, so for a particular point in time Antarctic ice may indeed be (for instance) 30% above the mean for the baseline period–but that is most likely *normal* for that time of year. (Ie., it is going to be 25-35% above the baseline mean at that time of year, *every* year.)
Since Arctic and Antarctic yearly cycles are basically out of phase–opposite to each other, roughly speaking–using a monthly figure is cherry-picker’s heaven. It’s my understanding that this is what George Will did–charitably, through not understanding the issues involved. Correct me if I’m wrong.
It doesn’t feel as though I’ve explained this clearly, but hopefully those will get the idea who need to!
DavidONE,
Sorry it was on this site that I said a comment was not getting posted and Mike was nice enough to inquire why on RC. I do not know if his asking or not mattered, but evenually my comment was posted and Galvin said he did not know and I would have to wait till Dr. Steig returned in March to find out the answer. That my comment was posted leads me to not believe I have been banned there but since the question was raised, I have sent an email to enquire.
I did not realize that was why I was banned from there. I guess I am dense but when the top stats guy in the country does a paper on the use of stats, I will tend to believe it until someone with a better grasp of stats comes along.
Mike, I am not trying to post debunked information. I am trying to point out that going after Will for facts that can be argued reasonably is a mistake. Saying that Will was wrong about global sea ice and then pointing to the Arctic is just handing the other side a rock to throw back. Maybe I am wording this wrong but for example, take “George Will’s climate howlers” – the author sets himself up by saying that Ice rebound and sea Ice mass facts were wrong when he went to the wrong source. The sea ice rebound and mass appear on the surface to be true – which makes everyone repeating the authors mistake look wrong too and adds just one more rock to the wall of disbelief.
What should have been done was to state that there is extensive sea ice loss in the Arctic due to warming and the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic is due to warming and then explain why, but that is not what was said. The difference is between educating people and raising doubt. If your just going to rally those who already agree with you then this is fine but if you really want to reach out, then I do not think that is the way to go.
I am sorry if I do not always express myself in the best possible way. If you do not want me to post here I will not.
Regards,
“The principle work that refutes that is PCF. PCF’s study uses the definition:
Consensus – when there are no papers being published that do disagree, i.e. 100 percent of everyone must agree on the same thing for consensus.”
No it doesn’t. The studies survey of the literature found more papers projecting warming than cooling.
“I myself fail to understand how PFC can say that global cooling was widely accepted (pretty much the definition of consensus) and then go on to say that since papers were published that did not agree with global cooling it was not the consensus.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. You fail to understand the paper – that’s quite clear. When the paper says “a global cooling trend was widely accepted” it’s referring to the fact that their was a cooling trend between the 40’s and 70’s. When we’re talking about the “global cooling myth” we’re referring to the myth that a consensus was projecting continued cooling and possibly an imminent ice age. This is the myth that Will perpetrated in his column.
If you still can’t understand the paper and you’re honest in your desire to, you could simply ask one of the authors to clarify it for you. I’m sure William Connolley would be happy to:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
[…] George Will and “The Swindle” tell you all you need to know, 28 Feb 09: relates Will to standard denier pathways and provides links to 15+ […]
PS to Tom Harris
Let us not forget that there is the “Tim Ball Award for Resume Stretching” to honour his achievements in this field of endeavour.
So Vernon ‘I am not trying to post debunked information’ is back? Actually, every line of Vernon’s ‘information’ is a shade of Roy Spencer or Anthony Watts, with nods to Michael J. Myers and even Crichton.
I think lenny is being generous when he suggests that Vernon does not understand the credible science he does cite: Vernon cannot possibly write what he writes and have bothered to take a real interest in understanding the information. He rather obviously and relentlessly pursues minutiae to dismiss the evidence.
Mind you, it’s not bad if we take it as creative writing. 🙂
—-
Creative writing that I’ve witnessed on a number of blogs.
Not just Vernon, but other dealers of confusion as well.
It kept reminding me of something else…
Do a wicki on the Lufbery Circle and see if you agree.
—-
Think of it this way Mike…
Two opponents: one armed with true facts in the proper context, and the other armed with false facts, cherry-picks and quote mines, but with much better debating skills.
The debate is the only denier strength and is also the Circle.
If a hit is scored against them, the response is reasonable sounding questions or the goal posts are moved.
The denier target is not his/her opponent, but is the lurkers in the background who have limited knowledge and are trying to find out the true state of affairs.
If our side quits the debate out of pure frustration, the denier wins and if threatened with banishment the denier many times will play the freedom of speech card…yuck.
Consider Lomberg, political science PhD. He seems to like debates does he not? And his arguments are are all so reasonable….double yuck.
Well his writings sometime influence me. but i too agree with others and still the same. confused. 🙂
—-
Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language 😉
See you!
Your, Raiul Baztepo
[…] If someone’s regular source of information is exclusively mainstream media Deniers such as George Will, Andrew Bolt, Lawrence Solomon, or James Delingpole then the disinformation campaign at Digg was no […]