BPSDB No, it’s not a typo; rational folks have stopped pretending that the climate change Deniers are actually “skeptics”, anything but!
Skepticism, after all, is a rational, intellectual process that involves critical analysis of the facts and reasoned doubt applied to all evidence and hypotheses.
“The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.” skeptic.com
In contrast, Climate change Deniers:
- ignore the facts and evidence;
- do not critically examine any evidence or hypotheses;
- unquestionably embrace any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false.
You have but to check any site in the Denialosphere to see the truth of this. We may not agree on exactly what they are, but it is quite clear that they are not skeptics. However, agreeing on what they are not does not give us a consensus on what they are.
The discussion is not new, but fired up again with the column by James Randerson Climate change creationists in The Guardian. I appreciate Randerson’s concern about the politicization of climate change science and his desire to avoid that, and particularly the alleged reference to Holocaust Denial.
As a substitute he offers “climate change creationists”, but I believe that it is not accurate and that it creates it’s own problems.
1) The arguments and tactics used by the Deniers are political, not scientific, so trying to avoid politicizing the issue with this crowd is not an option; that horse was never in the barn to start with.
2) Whether “Denier” invokes the Holocaust or not, “Creationist definitely invokes Evolution Denial, and that is not appropriate. I suspect most if not all Evolution Deniers are Creationists, but not all Creationists are Evolution Deniers.
Indeed a good many Creationists do not find Evolution to be incompatible with their faith and have a cosmology that quite comfortably accommodates both faith and scientific fact.
I think One Blue Marble avoids the Evolution trap with Climate Change Fundamentalism, but still has the problem that not all Fundamentalists are Deniers, nor are all Deniers Fundamentalists.
3) The only one’s who bring up the imaginary Holocaust connection are the climate change Deniers themselves. It is part of their meme that they are the innocent victims of persecution. This is a deliberate attempt to distract from thoughtful consideration of just what “Denial” means and whether the term is appropriate when applied to them.
In fact most of us frequently refer to this or that person as being “in denial” and no one is attempting to invoke the Holocaust or suggest anti-semitism. We are merely attempting to accurately describe a particular collection of behaviours.
George Monbiot discusses the issue in Climate change – the semantics of denial and states “I use the term deniers not because … I can’t think what else to call them.” Certainly it has been discussed on this blog repeatedly.
While I believe that a pretty strong case can be made for the appropriateness of
Septic Sep”tic\, n. A substance that promotes putrefaction.
using it would debase a perfectly good word, and so I do not actually suggest it, tempting though it may be to adopt this term.
UPDATE: :LOL: Digger lostlyrics suggests that we need anti-septics to combat climate Denial … a suggestion that has me seriously reconsidering adopting the term:-)
UPDATE 2: Stoat has taken umbrage (a fine purgative, good for gout, shingles, and high in vitamin D) at perceived plagiarism of his coining of “septic” to refer to Deniers.
He offers the indisputable evidence of The septics are cr*p (part XVII…) and Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians, although his REALITIES OF GLOBAL WARMING reference is a bit dubious, it may be a typo 😉
Anarchist6[zero]6 discusses the similarities between Climate Change, Holocaust, and Evolution denial in (not surprisingly) “Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution.” The similarities between Evolution Deniers and Climate Change Deniers has been discussed before, both on this blog and (elsewhere. Another parallel often drawn is “Climate change deniers are ‘flat-earthers’.” (BONUS Nicholas Stern warns of ‘absolute lunacy’ of Vaclav Kalus).
Those similarities are not because of any relationship between Evolution, Climate Change, the Holocaust, HIV, etc. It is because the are all Deniers … it’s really that simple.
“Denial” is not a fuzzy epithet to be hurled at anyone who disagrees with you. As Mark Hoofnagle discusses on his excellent denialism blog, denial is a well defined set of behaviours and actions. A Denier is someone who selects the term for themselves through their actions.
Now Mark has brought us Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them:
- First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth.
- The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data.
- The third tactic, the use of fake experts (everybody sing “you say Singer, I say Lindzen, let’s call Theon a fraud”)
- The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations
- Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies.
Regardless of their conclusions about climate science (or tobacco, evolution, HIV or the Holocaust), someone who engages in these behaviours is a Denier, pure and simple.
Yes it is an ugly word. “Racist” is an ugly word, and the only one you
Heartland Institute Strategy Guide
should use to describe racists. “Sexist” is an ugly word, and the only one you should use to describe sexists.
Denial is an ugly behaviour, and the only word we should use to describe those who practice it is “Denier.”
They avoid calling things by their true names because they know that if we do not know the true names we will not be wise enough to act.“
Johnny Rook – The Power of True Names
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 138 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS
SNC13724.JPG by bradleypjohnson
Greenfyre's 
Must… resist… inserting… Liberal… Fascism… joke… blaaaaarrrgh!
What do you think of this study that indicates that Jones was wrong and Hansen was right.
Ren et. al. (2008) Urbanization Effects on Observed Surface Air Temperature Trends in North China
I looked it up and Jones says there is no UHI and Hansen attepts to adjust for UHI. Anyway, it appears that GISS CONUS and this study for China show similar warming. Does this indicate that the GISS CONUS, RSS, and UAH are closer to the actual global warming delta than CRU or GISS global?
Vernon:
I can’t access the paper, so I can’t say anything about it at the moment, unlike certain self-proclaimed ‘skeptics’ who mindlessly believe whatever ‘paper summary’ co2science.org puts out. Sorry.
Thanks frankbi, but I did not read it there. Sorry but I do not read co2science.org very often.
Why are you always insulting?
Then you’re more gullible than I thought. Mindlessly believing a source which in turn mindlessly believes whatever ‘paper summary’ co2science.org puts out… that sure takes a lot of ‘skepticism’, eh?
Why do you hate free speech? 😉
Frank may not have access to the paper, but working at a university has its benefits. I’ve put it up on MediaFire.
frankbi, I fail to see how to see you could think I was any more gullible than the hate speech that you spew out would suggest. I think your acting like a jerk, but it is up to the moderator to enforce whatever politeness standards he wants here.
I repeat, I did not read this on the co2science.org site. I rarely ever go to that site.
Now I understand that you will not understand that so you can kiss off till you find someone to explain what “I did not read that there” means in terms you can understand.
I tend to go read the studies rather than taking anyone’s word for what they say.
About the UHI
Jones et. al. (1990), Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land
Which is the basis for not adjusting for UHI effect but rather CRU just increases the error range. These studies however prove that Hansen was right to adjust for UHI, which it appears he does well for CONUS but not so good for the Global GISS TEMP. Looking at the CONUS GISS TEMP, RSS, and UAH for the same time periods and they seem show similar trends. The studies that support this are:
Zhang et. al. (2008,) The relationship between remotely-sensed surface parameters and urban heat islands in the USA
and,
Gutierrez, et. al. (2008) Urban Heat Island effect from Satellite Remote Sensing and Land Surface Modeling
I am not saying that this means it is not warming, just that the quality of the surface stations are suspect till someone correctly models for UHI for the global temp. Hansen tries to adjust for it but there appears to be problems GISS. It should not be that hard to find out where each station is located and what the UHI adjustment due to urban growth should be. Either that or use satellite data.
Which must explain why you decided to avoid talking about the paper you just mentioned (i.e. Ren et al. (2008)) and proceeded to throw out a different bunch of papers… eh? (Gish Gallop watch!)
Also, the paper is a year old. The only conceivable reason that you’re talking about it now is that the usual inactivist sites are now brainlessly propagating it.
* * *
Anyway, from page 1344 of Ren et al.:
This would seem to be a good explanation of the large urbanization effect on surface temperatures in north China, and isn’t inconsistent with the thesis that urban heat islands don’t do much to global temperatures.
Brian D: By the way, thanks!
Sorry frank, did not know science spoils after a year.
Lets see, most dramatic warming took place between 1978 – 1998, UHI is not adjust for so UHI warming is biasing the climate trend – your right that was last years science, it cannot possible matter now.
Why is the global SAT higher than the satellite record, either RSS or UAH? Was it warming, yes.
I go back to what my point was:
The study showed that the location of the station within the urban area mattered. It with the other study and presentation I listed shows that there is enough evidence to indicate that Jones is wrong and Hansen is right. Further, it appears that GISS needs more work for the global SAT.
* First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth.
* The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data.
* The third tactic, the use of fake experts (everybody sing “you say Singer, I say Lindzen, let’s call Theon a fraud”)
* The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations
* Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies.
the sxth tactic is sticking to the same story. Long after it’s been debunked. Even after admitting the statements made aren’t valid. If nobody believes you anymore, move to another website and start repeating your debunked nonsense again. Never ever change a letter to your story.
i found a very extreme case of this rule in the person of Hans Labohm, but the same is valid for many denialists.
Vernon:
It doesn’t, but the fact that the paper’s only mentioned on inactivist web sites now is a perfectly good explanation of why you’re mentioning the paper only now.
Shut up. You’ve not read the paper, you’ve not read my discussion of the paper, you don’t intend to listen, you just want to keep repeating your ‘questions’ while ignoring all the answers given.
jules is right:
Frankbi,
You have gotten to the root of it in 10 words or less. 🙂
The identification of this ‘new’ problem of ‘urban warming bias’ (only known and discussed as recently as the 1980’s) is currently being highlighted and used as an argument against the overwhelming evidence of AGW by the usual crowd e.g. C02skeptics, ICECAP, Watts, Biggs, d”Aleo, etc.
It’s long been known that any number of surface processes and inhomogeneities can introduce biases (warm OR cold) into data sets. This problem with gridded climate data has been general knowledge for over 20 years and filtering continues to be refined.
A relatively strong bias in the China data has been noticed and discussed since 1990.
Even the AMS publishes this stuff, so I assume the deniers in broadcast weathercasting are all familiar with it. Of course, the AMS holds a position similar to the IPCC.
The problem in 2009, for anyone who understands the theoretical and practical import of the more recent papers cited, is that science has learned that the model biases require more correction under global warming conditions.
Since Vernon says he reads and understands the science papers, he knows why the risk of the overestimation of the projected warming is not new or unaccounted for by the vast majority of climate scientists, and does not change their agreement on AGW.
—-
The use of the word ‘septic’ does have the slight problem that it’s rhyming slang already in fairly common usage in the U.K. to refer to (U.S.) Americans:
Septic tank == Yank
There’s also Listerine, to refer to people who are anti-American (Listerine being an anti-septic mouthwash).
c.f. http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/s.htm
The discussion here is pretty funny. The article lauds the virtues of scientific reasoning, and then goes on to use a variety of ad hom and truth by assertion to make its points.
Yes, there are many people who absolutely refuse to accept any scientific evidence about global warming. Yes, some of them throw out fringe studies, then move on before those studies are readily refuted. It isn’t unreasonable to call them deniers. (Although it does seem a bit insensitive considering the well known association of holocaust denial.)
But there are many skeptics who don’t even come close to fitting this description. By refusing to examine their arguments you commit two of the sins you accuse climate deniers of:
*You ignore the facts and evidence;
*You do not critically examine any evidence or hypotheses;
UHI is one of the weakest parts of the IPCC report (AR4). This is probably because Jones was the lead author and he refused to allow any criticism of his own research to stand. As another poster has pointed out, even James Hansen accepts the need to adjust for UHI, and these adjustments have a material effect on the GISS numbers. We can argue about whether or not their adjustment algorithm makes any sense, but either Jones or Hansen or both are wrong.
If you insist that AR4 is right about UHI without reading the papers on both sides of the issue (and do follow up on what has happened since then, such as the MM07, S09, and the as yet unpublished critiques of S09) then by your own definition you too are a denialist.
As far as Lindzen goes, he is a very intelligent man who focuses on the science and is more than happy to debate the issue on its scientific merits. If he were faced with clear evidence that radiation within the atmosphere conforms to the predictions of GCMs, he would change his views and join the consensus (probably making some useful observations along the way). Who knows, he may live long enough for this to actually occur.
By treating him like some fringe lunatic, you only diminish your own credibility.
I was wondering when someone would cite Lindzen in defense of climate change not happening (you use it to defend UHI arguments, which say that global warming is an artifact in the data instead of a physical process), especially because he concurs that the globe really is warming up and it isn’t an artifact of the data. But that won’t enter your mind because you’ve drawn a line in the sand that you’re using to categorize everyone as pro- or vs- the consensus. (For the record, I *do* consider him fringe, but it’s not for his UHI statements. It’s for his insistence on clinging to the Iris Hypothesis in spite of directly contradictory evidence. That’s the behaviour of a crank, not a scientist.)
Similarly, you’re neglecting to explain why GISS’s (publicly published) corrected temperature — you know, accounting for the UHI that Hansen admits exists — concurs with satellite temperatures so well.
See also Peter Sinclair, or any of John V’s work on Climate Audit.
The UHI exists. We know about it, and can account for it.
While I agree that a lot of people in the public debate are in denial, for pragmatic reasons I chose not to label them as “denialist” or “denier”. It sets the wrong tone for a public discussion. We have to keep in mind that there are many participants to the debate that are not aware of its context and the scientific thinking on the subject. A lot of them are merely trying to make sense out of the conflicting messages they hear and read. The term “denier” will likely be seen by them as extreme name calling, because it draws a connection with holocaust denier. It may lead an innocent bystander to the debate to (wrongly) think of us -scientists- as being extremist. That should be avoided.
As Micheal Tobis noted: “Write to the reader, not the correspondent. […] do not forget that the reader may have a different presumption of who is dogmatic than is actually the case” Very good advice, I think.
Thanks for the link-back.
I should also point out that it is not only the deniers who link to holocaust denail – the editor of Sceptic magazine, did – however he linked them by tactics and was not saying they are crazy far-right racists.
I am veering towards the term ‘climate-creationists’ because they use the same strategy as creationism and are starting out with an ideological answer and then seeking ‘evidence’ to back it – as do the creationists. They also both tend to come from the political right, both are fighting PR battles as they have almost zero science (and almost zero scientists from the discipline they represent) and both claim the mainstream of science is engaged in some kind of vague conspiracy against their ‘evidence’.
Whatever term is used – they are not sceptics, their consistent inability to apply the same standards of scrutiny to all evidence they encounter, and reliance on conspiracy theories attests to that.
Good post & blog!
Martha, your funny. IPCC(4), with Jones as the chapter author totally discounted UHI. Hansen attemps to adjust for UHI, and does a pretty good job within CONUS, but global has issues which studies show.
Where did you possible get that? The IPCC and is the consensus view is that UHI was .05 per decade.
The problem in 2009, for anyone who understands the theoretical and practical import of the more recent papers cited, is that science has learned that the model biases require more correction under global warming conditions.
Do you just make this stuff up? UHI has now been proven to be more than Jones and the IPCC said and Hansen was shown to be right. Point me to one study shows model biases require more correction under global warming conditions.
The problem Hansen has in doing the global GISS Temp is that out side of a few countries, there are no extensive rural long term weather stations in order for him to make a UHI adjustment.
Vernon:
I don’t care how many times you repeat, repeat, repeat that talking point of yours. Because I’ve already answered it.
That is all.
— bi
Frank, did not know your Martha too, but no you did not answer it. You did everything but answer it.
Yes, Frank, I read the paper. Jones and IPCC(4) discounted UHI. Hansen did not, those three studies I listed all go to prove that Hansen was right. There is signifcant UHI and if you use collection points within urban areas then the UHI will have an impact. What part of that do you not understand? What do you cite that suggests that Hansen was wrong?
—-
Vernon said: “Yes, Frank, I read the paper. Jones and IPCC(4) discounted UHI.” Vernon that absolutely false statement can only mean one of two things. you either haven’t read the AR4 report as you claim, thus making you a liar, or your English comprehension skills are very poor.
Here is a quote from the chapter which you claim to have read:
“Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have
not biased the large-scale trends. A number of recent studies indicate that effects of urbanisation and land use change on the land-based temperature record are negligible (0.006ºC per decade) as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned because the very real but local effects are avoided or accounted for in the data sets used”.
The meaning of this paragraph is not as you indicate. The UHI effect was not discounted but was actually measured and found to be very low. The difference in temperature trend was 0.006ºC per decade and not the 0.05ºC per decade that you stated in a previous post. You are either a dishonest liar or you are so ignorant of what you are discussing that you are just embarrassing yourself. Take your pick.
Ian
It could be Door Number 1 or Door Number 2. 😉
Vernon
1) Regarding a previous post where you refer to me as ‘child’ — your sexism is profound, my brother.
2) Please visit e.g. university sites, and look up the current research in departments that deal with atmospheric sciences, geography, climatology, etc.
3) Look up research in national or international research labs specializing in climate science.
4) Then visit sites that conduct targeted research on climate models.
When you have thus increased your knowledge and research literacy, you will have made significant strides in answering your own questions. I want to encourage you, because there is really no replacement for independent and competent knowledge skills. I assume you know how to explore a topic; if you don’t, it is best that you start by following the links already provided.
To be clear, there is no dialogue unless you at least attempt steps 1 to 3. Your choice.
Ian,
did you bother to read the studies I listed earlier. The fact is that Jones and the IPCC do not adjust for the UHI effect, they only increase the error for the trend. Hansen was right, you have to adjust the trend for the UHI. Going back to a 1990 study of Jones where the data that supports his contention has “been lost” is weak at best.
Martha,
I cannot find on this page where I have referred to you as a child, but then that would not be sexism. Why is it that you spout garbage but never cite actual studies that support your position? When facts do not work you try to change the discussion to me being sexist – bull.
I suggest you try reading the studies, find out what the current science. Some how I do not see Hansen as being fringe science. He did not agree with Jones and he has been proven right.
Climate ‘skeptic’ McClintock spewed a whole pile of nonsense during his Heartland ‘conference’ key note address. Let the jaw dropping begin!
— bi
Vernon,
As I said, you refer to me as ‘child’ in a previous post (blog post) on this site, so you will not see it on this page. I do not see you referring to any males as children. The source of that attitude is patriarchy but you are not going to have any insight about that, and since I am concerned with the more immediate issues for women I observed it for the benefit of my fellow activists. It is always interesting to observe various dynamics in a discussion.
I understand the point of your interest and you need to reframe it as an issue addressed in the science as much broader than Jones or Hansen.
If you have basic research skills and your question is of genuine interest to you, you will get answers on several sites already linked to this blog. Did you visit the discussion and information-sharing recommended by Brian?
More advanced research skills will get you a range of credible information on sites you have never visited.
Go to university sites and look up the current research in departments that deal with atmospheric sciences, geography, climatology, etc.
Look up research in national or international research labs specializing in climate science.
Visit sites that conduct targeted research on climate models.
Do your own reading. I am not your secretary.
Martha, that is the lamest argument I have seen. So some one saying your argument was child like is sexist. I labeled you a child when you started talking about fair in a discussion about the science. I am amazed that you know me so well to know that the source of my attitude is patriarchy and not distain at your fuzzy logic. Yes, I object to your making over blown generalizations and when pushed to actually back them up you fall back on:
You make nifty statements about the science such as:
What the in the wide, wide world makes you think that the science that is going to be used to make policy decisions has a social context or contemporary philosophical issues. Please, please do not make that fair comment again which is why I labeled you a child to begin with. Either the science stands or it does not and nothing about society or philosophy will change it. If your trying to hijack the science for some personal crusade to change society or for philosophical reasons, then fine, but stay of discussions about the science.
I guess I am nicer than you. I actually provide facts, studies, and links to support my decision. What is wrong with being a secretary? Is that your sexism showing?
Vernon:
False. You just keep parroting the same talking point about a bunch of papers which you clearly did not read. When I responded to you, you simply ignored my answer and repeated the same talking point.
When Ian responded you also ignored his answer and repeated the same talking point.
— bi
Vernon
Nothing at all wrong with secretaries. I said I am not yours. I am positioned quite differently from the average secretary, who is usually female, highly skilled, but in 2009 still grossly underpaid, and often controlled by the boss. If lucky, the dictator is benevolent. Since your behaviour is very controlling, I think I would find it particularly unpleasant to be your secretary. All of this, is my point.
These and other negative perceptions at a personal level could be wrong, however, and it doesn’t matter. Why doesn’t it matter? Because you could possibly be an ass, yet possibly completely right about all the science.
Unfortunately, there are serious and obvious problems with your denialism. You don’t read or visit current and credible research sites; you don’t seem to understand the science that you do read since you can’t seem to sort out what is accurate and confirmed from what is problematic; and you engage in the most repetitive disinformation, debunked here and elsewhere.
Occasionally you mention something that is actually an area of real and current inquiry. I made summarizing comments about my reading of the current research on the ‘warming bias’ in the models. Your patronizing response and demonstrated ignorance of the current state of the scientific community’s work on this is quite telling.
You either choose not to understand what is said to you i.e., poor listener, or you can’t. Unless you are hospitalized, I assume you are not too fragile for honest feedback, so here it is: most of what you say is familiar and utterly lame pseudoscience, paraded as scientific ‘fact’ by (mostly) men who need to feel self-important.
You may very well be one of the most controlling individuals I have seen on this site.
However, you have a problem. This is ‘GreenFyre’s’ – not ‘Vernon’s’ — so not only am I not your secretary, but this is not your office.
You can demand all you want, but my response to you is the same: read the credible and current science on this site and other recommended sites, both general and specific.
That is going to take some time. If you continually and quickly come back to repeat the same minutiae of no consequence to the overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW (or worse, the standard denialist disinformation) you confirm yourself to be irrelevant to a discussion of the science, or any related matters. That’s the important point.
All of that to say that Hansen is wrong. I never would have taken him for a denialist, but that is just me.
I must be pretty important, every time I comment you have to pop up and takes shots at what I present. I have to admit, this time your preconceptions must have gotten the better of you. In climatology there is significant debate over the influence of UHI. Hansen thinks it is significant and adjusts for it. Jones thinks that it is not significant and does not adjust for it. As the principle author of that chapter in the IPCC(4) and and Ian was kind enough to quote:
These studies show that UHI is much more of an impact that Jones and the IPCC presented.
That is not denialism, that is the science. It does not change because it is not fair. Now if you want to point out a current study that conflicts with Hansen’s view on UHI, go for it.
Based on my reading and such, I do not think you can so that is why you toss out garbage like: “continually and quickly come back to repeat the same minutiae of no consequence to the overwhelming scientific evidence for AGW.” I guess that is what you do if you don’t actually know anything in a scientific discussion.
Oh yeah, I do not know which “-ism” your violating, but I am not your brother.
Personally, I cannot stop laughing hearing the standard attacks made on me as a ‘denialist’ when I post that it appears that Hansen, a hero of denialist everywhere, has won the argument with Jones over UHI. I pretty sure than Hansen will use this to rush to congress to tell them that there is no warming.
As for Frank
Lets make sure I do not miss anything.
I read a study and post that I think it proves that Hansen was right in the treatment of UHI. You post:
I answer that I did not read it there, I do not go there very often and I got:
So let me see, I post that I think that studies prove that Hansen is right and you assume I went to co2science.org. I tell you I did not go there, do not go there and get more verbal sewage spill about I am gullible for believing what co2science puts out.
Lets see, at this point, even if I did read the paper, it does not matter because you know I got my information from co2science, regardless of what I say. When I ask why do you have to be insulting, you imply I am against free speech. I guess it is your right to be an ass.
At this point I give up having a discourse with you. I am guessing that this is the argument that I have failed to address:
I read this and think, are you stupid? What do you think is being discussed? Hansen adjusts for UHI based on the location of the stations and Jones does not. If you pop your head out, you might realize that what you have just said was stupid. Jones uses the reading from urban sites without adjusting for UHI. Hansen does adjust for UHI for urban stations.
Where do you offer an argument about the issue I am discussing, namely that Hansen has been proven right and Jones wrong.
All I can think is that you have decided that ‘he is going to use this to deny global warming’ so lets smack him down. To that end you, Martha, and a few others have only shown that you do not bother to read what is offered for discussion, that your as bad as what I have read at some of the skeptic sites.
So let me be plain, I proposed that the three studies I quoted from earlier, prove that Hansen was right to adjust for UHI and that Jones was wrong to say it was not significant.
Your counter argument was (paraphrased): “The study proved UHI in northern China, but that isn’t inconsistent with the thesis that urban heat islands don’t do much to global temperatures.”
Please point out where your counter argument disproves that UHI is very significant, which Jones says it is not, and that it must be adjusted for as Hansen says and does. You total argument is to say it is not inconsistent.
Sorry, but if these two papers and the one presentation do not prove that there is a significant UHI effect, then what does it take? Which Hansen paper are you going to disqualify and on what grounds that says you must adjust for UHI?
Now how about addressing my argument, namely that Hansen was right and Jones was wrong.
Vernon, you are not only a denier but you are completely ignorant of climate science and can’t even interpret what you are reading.
Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? You could very well be the poster boy since you are so completely devoid of any understanding of what you are ranting on about.
The paragraph which you quote says the exact opposite of what you are claiming. It says that the UHI effect is small in some places therefore no adjustment is required but in other places where it is important it has been “accounted for in the data sets used”.
Good grief, you are so stupid but you keep pretending that you know everything when, in fact, you know next to nothing. You remind me of the quote from “The Great Escape”, “you think I know damn nothing, but in fact I know damn all”. That exactly describes your knowledge and abilities.
—-
Ian,
You do not know what your talking about. Did you bother to find out how it is being ‘adjusted’ for? Bet you did not,
well, here is how it is adjusted for by Jones and CRU:
Hansen on the other hand actually adjusts for UHI of urban stations.
Increasing the uncertainties is not the same.
Lets see if I understand you. I must be stupid and incompetent because I understand that papers in the last few years have proven that UHI is significant which Jones says it is not. Because I understand that GISS attemps to adjust for UHI and that CRU and Jones do not I am a denier.
You quote IPCC(4) where Jones is the principle author and it says it is accounted for in the datasets used. Did you bother to find out how it is accounted for? Nope, your to busy calling me names to bother to find out what is being referred to. Well, I did it for you.
Once again, Hansen was right and Jones was wrong.
Ian, I don’t disagree.
GreenFyre, it is amazing. Good field work though, don’t you think? 😉
He perceives any consideration of his chats about the science, along with his other ignorant attitudes, as a sign of personal importance — especially when the feedback is negative. He says this himself.
More seriously, he truly believes that he and the denialosphere have shattering information that the entire scientific community (and the rest of us) are not aware of, discussing, and understanding. He says this himself.
Wow. Next thing you know, with those special powers, he’ll be leaping from windows in a cape.
Plop.
Vernon go and read the Jones Nature paper for your self. You will see that you are completely misinterpreting Jones’ conclusions.
Jones is not ignoring UHI effects but found that when un-adjusted data (unadjusted for UHI) were used in a gridded system the effects of UHI did not significantly affect the averages and trends. He is not “ignoring” UHI effects as you are suggesting. He is very aware that UHI exists but he showed that it does not materially effect gridded data which is how CRU calculates global average temperature trends. He has many papers showing UHI effects. Note that the data used are temperature anomalies and not actual temperatures in CRU and GISS tables and figures.
Jones’ Nature paper can be found here:
Click to access b90.pdf
Ian, you mean the paper that the support data for was lost? That paper? Hansen shows that UHI does effect the data which is why it must be adjusted for. Hansen presents his data and Jones lost his. The new studies show that UHI is much greater than Jones indicates. Hansen wins this one.
Vernon, please rewrite your post in proper English so we can understand it.
Why do deniers have such problems with the use of the English language? What they don’t realize is that their scientific knowledge is as low as their ability to write in correct grammatical English. Surely they must have failed in their education.
Vernon loses in all his posts.
“Vernon, please rewrite your post in proper English so we can understand it.”
🙂
But seriously, Ian, as you correctly note, UHI does not affect the global temp trend to any extent, which is what he wants to claim. The issue is not Hansen vs Jones — unless one is an avid reader of Steven McIntyre, Watts, D’Aleo, and Monckton. The Brohan et al 2006 and China data are being touted by McIntyre, Watts, etc as new discoveries. Business must be very slow, indeed.
The facts are that rural areas and oceans are warming, the permafrost and ice sheets are melting, plant cycles and the migration patterns of animals are changing, and these facts and a host of others are not affected by this trumped up denialist talking point.
The bogus ‘new’ issue is being translated into the false message that the public cannot trust the surface temp measurements of NASAGISS or HADLEY/CRU. It’s utter crapola.
Yes, city structures absorb and radiate heat e.g. roads, industry, traffick, and this contributes to a ‘heat island’ effect which contaminates the data. This is not news. But
I suppose so-called ‘Y2K error’ — which has biblical proportions for the denialosphere — is also confusing him.
You know, that time when a data error changed the identification of the warmest years in the U.S. but did not affect the identification of the global trend?
A visit to the NASA data site would help him better understand the measures used to correct this and other contamination problems. The UHI UHI effect is reduced via comparative data sets. The global temp trend is determined by rural station date; they calculate the rate of global warming by comparing surface, sea ice and ocean surface temps. The fact that a number of areas are poorly sampled is acknowledged and discussed in relation to historical data and global stations.
There are and there will continue to be problems with analyses – both warming AND cold bias errors are problematic. For example, the U of Alabama analysis in 2005 didn’t adjust for satellite decay so the error was an underreporting of warming, to the tune of 40%. Physical models and statistical analyses continue to be refined.
As I explained to him, it’s long been known that any number of surface processes and inhomogeneities introduce biases into data sets. The relatively strong bias in the China data has in fact been noticed and discussed since 1990. In 2009, the most current papers cited on a number of university research and lab websites suggest that the science models will require more correction under global warming conditions.
Ian, I have quite exhausted my acceptance of his completely disingenuous ‘discussion’ of the science and negative behaviours. I haven’t learned a single new thing from him.
How about you?
Jones et al (1990) says that they had long term documentation on the stations used in China, however, the DOE/CAS found:
DOE/CAS report at http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ndps/ndp039.html
Jones et al (1990) is not backed up by the evidence. His position that UHI was less than .06C per decade regional and global where CRUT3 show a warming trend of 0.31°C (10 yr)−1 per decade over the 40 years 1961 to 2000 for China region. However, Ren et al (2008) found that the actual warming trend was 0.18°C (10 yr)−1.
Martha you say:
Why don’t you buy a clue. NASA uses Hansen’s methodology. Where do you think he works? Jone and CRU do not use Hansen’s methodology and Jone’s 1990 is based on data that does not exist.
I know this may be a bit much but Jone et al (1990) listed the source of their data for China one of the authors for DOE/CAS study and she says the data does not exist.
Hansen was right, Jones was wrong. You sound pretty dumb pointing at NASA and saying that proves Jones was right.
Vernon,
If you want discussion, then stop parroting the same talking point which has already been answered more than a week ago.
— bi
“Hansen was right, Jones was wrong. You sound pretty dumb pointing at NASA and saying that proves Jones was right.”
It is understandable that some people get confused by what they read. But is it really possible to read what I said, and come up with this?
Something’s wrong.
Regardless, Jones vs Hansen is a non-issue, as I suggest above. It is a completely false ‘debate’ to claim UHI (and a number of related non-issues raised regarding historical statistical analysis, such as Jones, and current analysis, such as the China data) renders suspect the overwhelming data that confirms AGW.
The overwhelming evidence is not affected by some talking point on Jones and it is irrelevant to many other facts that confirm AGW, unrelated to such minutiae.
We have in V. an excellent study of denialism. The funny part, though, is that he doesn’t even read and understand the bogus and twisted denier arguments correctly! His spontaneous stuff is such a violation of logic and comprehension of both what he reads and what other people have in fact said to him, that it is actually quite sad.
Such a waste of a human mind.
There is no point in going over any more of this. ALL of it, I have no doubt, has been explained to him in detail on other sites.
I wonder if he has been banned anywhere lately for his excessive harassment of individual sites and his persistent disinformation and disservice to the public good?
That’s a rhetorical question. 😉
Let me see if I understand what Frank and Martha have to say.
If I understand your logic, by me saying that I believe that the science seems to support Hansen and his methodology over Jones and his methodology, that makes me a denier. You do realize how stupid that sounds?
I get insult from Frank, crap from Martha, and Ian say Jones is right because Jones says he is right, lets ignore the science.
Martha, you do not discuss the science, I have my doubts you understand it. You seem to have some strange conspiracy theory that there is some site with talking points (where you get that?) that believes that saying that Jones was wrong and Hansen was right is the key to denying global warming. Can you please point to which site has talking points saying support of Hansen is the key to denying climate change? I have not been banned from any site but one that I know of. I know that you most likely do not understand the science but why not go ask someone you trust if Hansen is pro or con on climate change.
Ian, read Jones et al (1990) and what his methodology and result were – Jones said that UHI was a magnitude less than the Climate Change tend. Then look at the CRU temps for the China region, which uses his methodology, after that read the Ren et al (2008) study. It pretty much appears that Jones was totally wrong on UHI, which he does not account for and that Hansen was right to adjust for it. If you could point to any modern studies that proves Jones right, I will be glad to review them and discuss it.
I am beginning to wonder though. If only saying that on of the foremost experts on climate change is right makes one a denier, what is required to be an environmentalist?
Vernon, have you actually read any of the papers that you are talking about? You claim that Ren at al. confirms that there is a UHI effect. You say that Hansen agrees that there is a UHI effect. You further claim that Jones says that there is no UHI effect.
If you had bothered to read the Ren et al. paper you would have seen that Jones is a co-author of the Ren paper.
Therefore, by simple logic, Jones and Hansen agree.
Why are you so stupid? Did you have trouble in school or are you just playing stupid because you enjoy playing games and you are seeking approval from the band of dishonest deniers? Are they your heroes? You are one sick kid mate.
You can read more about the UHI effect and the Ren paper at:
http://tinyurl.com/dxw8v2
http://tinyurl.com/2ctz4a
Ian,
I have read the papers. I claim that Ren at el confirms that there is a UHI effect and that it impacts on regional scales, which is what Ren found.
If you knew what you were talking about you would realize that prior to this paper, Jones steadfastly held that UHI was a full magnitude less than the overall warming trend. Hansen did not agree with this and has adjusted for UHI. CRU (Jones) did not adjust for UHI which is why in the CRU3 temp set, the China region showed UHI influenced warming, which is what Ren et al found.
That is why I say that Jones position, no UHI (or at least a magnitude less than the warming trend overall) has been proven wrong. That Jones helped prove his original findings were wrong seemed pretty apparent to anyone that read the paper.
Please note that Jones, prior to this paper, was the lead author of that section of the IPCC(4) and reflects his work, hence, the “magnitude less” phase which you quoted earlier.
So while I am castigated as a denier for pointing out the obvious, I think some of you should answer a simple question. If Jones now agrees that he was wrong, and Hansen has always though he was right, where is being a denier to say as I did in the beginning:
“What do you think of this study that indicates that Jones was wrong and Hansen was right.”
I keep trying to see how saying that was the act of a denier.
“…the quality of the surface stations are suspect till someone correctly models for UHI for the global temp.”
That is, as I said, Vernon’s point. But let’s not take my word for it: we know it is his point, because it is his own stated conclusion, above.
“What the IPCC does not want you to know is that they truncated the proxy data and graphs…”
…and he is also extremely paranoid, if a look around the Internet is any indication.
He likes to engage endlessly with anyone on credible sites who is willing to respond to him in the interests of fair dialogue. He seems to have very pronounced moods, changing quickly from “please, please, tell me where I have misunderstood this?” to extreme hostility when he is no longer taken seriously.
He attempts the same denier talking points and arguments as McIntyre, Watts, ICECAP, and some of the other usual suspects. And again if the Internet is any indication, he has been doing so for years.
Who knew? 😉
I don’t need to ‘prove’ anything: both the facts and Vernon’s babblefests are in the public domain. Of course, on his current point, he does not cite a study that shows it has been relevant to the trend — because it isn’t. There are mountains of studies and discussion and analysis and information showing it is not. Perhaps he will soon publish his special knowledge in a journal.
Who could possibly have the time for him? He trolls 24/7.
That said, such compulsive behaviour has resulted in some pretty funny stuff! Over at realclimate, where I see that Gavin has had the patience of a saint, someone (two years ago) suggested a virtual ‘time-out room’ just for Vernon, with links to his repetitive false statements and violations of basic reasoning (to remind him why he is in the time-out room).
God that’s hilarious. 🙂
I’m done.
Cheers!
time-out room:
1) Tim Lambert over at Deltoid has a special thread for Tim Curtin, i.e., Tim is only allowed to post there, and if others want to go in, fine.
2) Over at RealClimate, there’s a thread on advice to people starting climate blogs.
I suggested a mechanism for moderator to still allow posts, but easily move OT posts or silly ones to a “shadow thread”.
3) And of course, there is always Firefox + greasemonkey + killfile; try it, it will help your blood pressure 🙂
‘Denialist’ is good for me. It describes people who have a purpose in denying climate change that isn’t based on science, debate or challenging ideas. They have a separate agenda that isn’t influenced by those things. Sure, some posters here may not like it as a term but terms such as ‘climate creationist’ are convoluted whereas ‘denialist’ is simple and gets right to the point and thats’ what we always need when dealing with such people.
“Denial” is a much used in twelve-step programs working with addictions to alcohol, drugs, pornography, overeating, debt, fossil fuels, energy use, etc.
People generally do not apply the term “in denial” to themselves in the present tense. No one says “I am in denial.” People may talk about how “I was in denial, but now I see more clearly. People may also perceive that others are “in denial,” and when the accusation is made publicly, it’s generally denied.
[…] George Will, and other self-proclaimed climate ’skeptics’ have shown themselves willing (enthusiastic) to repeat falsehoods, time and again, even after […]
[…] Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers, Climate Deniers literally are “Flat Earthers”, That “Denier vs Septic” thing again. As well, recommend Richard Summerville and A Response to Climate Change […]
Surely, you are a poe? “Marxist”
And in your previous comment you got pretty upset with such a -ist label…
[…] attribution seems to be the most frequent; I can’t link to them all. I will single out the commenter on this blog who mistakenly remembers the line occurring somewhere in The Great […]
[…] I claim to have originated the label “septic” for the malodourous end of the skeptic range, and I have the evidence (in fact I can go back further) for the context-less jonny-come-latelies. […]