BPSDB“WASHINGTON — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.
Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press (for full story).”
Nice! Of course the climate science and science blogs have been saying so all along, repeatedly (below), but this independent AP story can be nothing but good news for the fact based, rational world.
[UPDATE 22:30 EST The APS story has +100,000 search engine hits already – wonderful! Kudos to Seth Borenstein]
Some discussions of this story (honestly? I post a link, reload the search and find that yet another blog is covering it. No fear … this one can’t get too much coverage).
- Myth of Cooling Globe shattered by AP-sponsored ‘blind’ test
- Statisticians Confirm: No Global Cooling Despite Skeptic Spin
- Must-read AP story: Statisticians reject global cooling
- “Global cooling” scam debunked yet again
- High-quality AP journalism shatters myth of recent global cooling
Given that, I am satisfied to document (and recognize) that the issue has been well covered for a very long time, and the continued willful ignorance on the part of the climate change Deniers is deliberate disinformation, but then what part of the Denier Canon isn’t?
Recent climate blogs
- Why global warming isn’t taking a break
- A warming pause?
- “Global warming stopped in 1998″
- NYT’s Revkin pushes global cooling myth (again!) and repeats outright misinformation.
- Has global warming really stopped?
- Claims of a Decade of Cooling Refuted By Analysis Showing It Warmest by Fair Margin
- Why the 1998-2008 Temperature Trend Doesn’t Mean a Whole Lot
- New GW denialists’ deceptive lie on global temperatures
Of course, as discussed on this blog:
- the only way there could be no inter-annual variation is if the Earth were literally flat in every respect “Climate Deniers literally are “Flat Earthers””
- every peak year is followed by a slightly cooler period “Global Warming is over! once every decade or so …“
Global Warming ends every decade or so ...
On this blog
And more
- Yes, Global Warming is Real and it’s Still Happening
- Earth to Jacoby: I Got Your Global Warming Right Here
- What Bob Carter and Andrew Bolt fail to grasp:”…
- Yes, the planet has kept warming since 1998
- The 1998 cherry pick
- Yes, the data show the planet STILL keeps warming
- Mind the Gap!
- “Climate sceptics have their head in the sand“
- New media same as the old media. Politico pimps global cooling
- Myth ” Temperatures plummeted in 2008″ proves global cooling
- Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
- Did global warming stop in 1998?
- Temperatures are continuing to rise
- Collected debunking of “Seven Graphs”
- The Stupid Cult of Cooling and the Goyder Line debate
- Global Cooling-Wanna Bet?
- The Global Cooling Bet – Part 2
- Richard Lindzen claims global warming stopped in 1998
- Most bizarre Denier claim: “Global warming stopped in 1998″.
- Stop me if you’ve heard this before
- Global warming greatest in past decade
- Northern Hemisphere Sets 1300 Year Climate Warming Record
- Why Tim Ball is Wrong
- What the IPCC models really say
As I said, it’s not news to anyone who knows even basic climate change facts …
“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
[…] No Global Cooling Despite Skeptic Spin; Joe Romm, Must Read AP Story; and Greenfyre’s Independent statisticians reject global cooling fable. (Note: if you’re not aware of any of these three, they are all sites worth being part of […]
I read this today as well. I then sent the following to my skeptical and denier friends:
Statisticians reject global cooling
But but but… BUT they’re statisticians! What do they know!?
“The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.”
“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”
Oh – it’s a NOAA guy… he can’t possibly know what he’s talking about either… the nerve of these people!
“Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.”
WHAT? How dare you quote a retired person… everyone knows they’re senile!
“Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it’s important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.”
Huh? Crazy hoax… now Al Gore has gotten to the Statisticians!!! They are believers! Oh nooooooooo! (<—- Mr. Bill voice)
"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford."
How dare they quote a working climate scientist! Someone who's career is spent studying this topic day in and day out, year after year… No, he cannot possibly know anything about Global Warming… worse yet can't be trusted to tell us the truth. Damn… Al Gore got to him also!!!
"Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid."
Peer reviewed!? We all know how un-trustworthy the peer review process is. Why does anyone even bother reviewing others' papers? What a joke! Throw this part of the article out because the finding of the paper was peer-reviewed! Grrrrrrrrr… no doubt Al Gore again! Has to be his fault.
In spite of what statisticians say, I say Global Cooling is happening because… because I saw it on Fox News… so there!
; )
—-
—-
—-
He’s probably a Marxist too. Wealth Redistribution! Government Control! Karl Marx! Marx MARX MARX!!!!!!!!!
Instead of doing one of those Stalinist statistical procedures like good ol’ least-squares linear regression, the correct, capitalist thing to do is to invent some fantastically complicated ‘statistical’ procedure that has no theory behind it, and use it to show that the globe’s cooling.
(And in case the fantastically complicated procedure with no theory behind it happens to show that it’s warming, then it just shows that statistics lie. Oh, and Karl Marx.)
— bi
—-
See http://masterresource.org/?p=5240 for the definitive Cherry Pickers guide to temperature trends.
UP? DOWN? FLAT? There is plenty to pick from.
—-
Chip Knappenberger is right about Lindzen, but wrong about Rahmstorf. Global warmiing is happening pretty much as the climate models predict — Rahmstorf compared against climate models not only the rate of change of the temperature anomalies, but the actual temperature anomalies themselves.
But that won’t suit Chip’s “both sides of the debate are cherry-picking” narrative…
— bi
—-
Well, I may get around to writing one… but after reading the Heartland Institute’s essay on the Free Software Marxist Conspiracy, I’m now busy freeing my computer from the shackles of Marxist software. 🙂
Anyway, I think a more important reason that Rahmstorf is correct is that he directly compares temperature measurements to climate models — which do not output linear trends. (I’ve always maintained that linear regression are just a quick way of describing stuff, and shouldn’t really be used for Actual Analysis.)
— bi
…is to invent some fantastically complicated ’statistical’ procedure that has no theory behind it, and use it to show that the globe’s cooling.
Waitaminute here…. what’s so complicated about downloading temperature data and picking two data points? 😉[1]
(OK, so the downloading part might get a bit complicated, depending on the tinfoil-hatter’s** computer skills).
**I prefer to use “tinfoil-hatter” instead of “denier”. IMO, “tinfoil-hatter” better captures the silliness of the skeptics’ arguments, and it does not give them an opening to cry about Godwin’s Law. [2]
—-
That is too passé. Nowadays, you definitely need a fantastically complicated ‘statistical’ procedure to waffle your way through — even if the fantastically complicated procedure turns out to be equivalent to picking two data points. 🙂
— bi
The nice thing about the AP story is that it debunks the myth that global warming is being pushed by people with an agenda. For skeptics, knowing more about a subject makes you less trustworthy, since expertise supposedly gives you a vested interest in defending your past findings. Well, now the morons who don’t trust climate scientists have another source to go to.
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/blind-support-for-global-warming.html
You guys are missing the point. It isn’t that the was no cooling trend detected over the last decade . It is that no warming trend was discernible in the raw data either [1]. In the context of all the ‘time is running out’ hysteria flooding the world at the moment this is pretty remarkable.
Personaly I don’t think that ten years of data mean anything. [2] Indeed I doubt that 100 years of solid data is sufficient basis for analysis of climate – and we don’t even have that. [3]
—-
Shorter Chris Maddigan:
The globe’s cooling, and the globe’s not cooling but that’s not the point, and all the temperature data available have been contaminated by Al Gore.
— bi
Cheap Shot!
More data at nationalforestlawblog.com
Paul Pierett.
—-
Cheap shot versus Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God
It is more than one perceives.
It is solar energy, sunspot mean count for a year, a cycle and for nine cycles in a century.
It is the axis of the earth.
It is the variations in the orbit of the earth around the sun.
It is atmosphere and how the same elements act in the ocean.
It is the ocean and air currents.
The cheap shot is qualifying their data. They left out the above.
We had global warming until roughly 2000 and now the numerous factors are falling into place behind the correlation on sunspot activity.
The cheap shot left that out.
Atlantic hurricane seasons are dropping off to a solar minimum correlation. We are starting to see initial signs of new glacier activity which grows when sunspot activity drops.
The Cheap shot left that out.
I was very disappointed in the article for anyone could pull up this data off the NOAA web site anytime.
The key point is the earth warms in fluctuations and cools in fluctuations.
My focus is on USA average winter temperatures for they affect the hurricane season the most. If one uses the annual USA temperatures correlation is difficult due to the overlap. For example,
I use 33 degrees as the governing line between extreme hurricane seasons and glacier growth. If the winters warm above 34 degrees, we will have an active season.
If the winter average temperatures drop below 32 we can easily find new growth in glaciers.
The Cheap Shot didn’t cover that.
Now, the cheap shot, if I pulled out the AP article by itself, have a major debate in Washington about Cap and Trade, a world that wants our President to sign away 2 percent of our GNP, had numerous politicians don’t read a bill, then someone has a group come in and confirm what I know, but they do not know what is coming and I have spent months trying to convince people what is coming
So they read the AP article and march out on to the floor and vote for Cap and Trade and encourage our President to put us under a world government and redistribute our wealth.
The Cheap Shot is well timed.
What is coming is severe winters, at least two decades of severe cold that will damage food production. If we pass Cap and Trade, there may not be enough new coal plants to provide heat for our population.
The Cheap Shot didn’t cover that.
It is not on my back anymore, it is now on the AP to clean up their mess.
They just trashed a lot of people’s efforts with this article.
I learned while working public affairs at the Pentagon, major news sources publish news articles that had numerous errors about the Army and then want us clean up their mess. I remember one case and I worked six hours with a reporter cleaning up another reporter’s untruths. The reporter asked why we didn’t rebut this when it came out. I told her that is the reporter’s and the Editor’s responsibility. We can’t read and rebut every thing you all print.
Butterflies trying to land on a Pulitzer Prize.
I sent my work to the AP. They can use my stuff to clean up their own mess.
Paul Pierett
—-
Brrr…..a creationist:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~paulpierett/
(note the reference to “the deluge”).
—-
[…] Greenfyre’s: Independent statisticians reject ‘global cooling’ fable […]
I will answer any personal attacks. The comment made towards me had nothing to do with what I was saying. It was aimed at me.
Don’t leave personal attacks on the web and expect me not to answer the personal offense..
I answered the context of the comment said towards me.
Now, please remove your comment for I find it offensive.
Paul Pierett
That chart you have on the top of this post, if it is the 2008 GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, is just that: an analysis of surface air temperature measurements. Its a way of looking at planetary temperature, but as Jim Hansen’s 2008 AGU lecture noted, the observed variation in temperature of part of the global ocean, i.e. El Nino/La Nina events, is strongly associated with variation in the yearly analysis of global surface air temperatures.
Working with the best data available, he showed that when a La Nina event occurs the yearly global surface air temperature declines, whereas an appearance of El Nino coincides with a rise in the global surface air temperature.
He predicted in a later update to the GISS surface temperature analysis on Jan 13 2009: “Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years”.
The expected El Nino has begun, so we’ll all see if Jim is right.
One point Jim has made is that “there is not enough good data” about the temperature of the deep ocean. Some researchers, he says, have assumed that where no data is available, there has been no change. Hansen wants more and better satellite data about tropospheric aerosols as well.
He stated that the “error bar” in analysis of the best available data on the forces driving the change in planetary temperature “is huge”. His concern is that better data will show climate change to be a far greater problem than has been generally assumed. He described this concern in detail in the 2008 San Francisco lecture.
[…] Time for some context. The closest Adelaide has ever come to a spring heat wave was 4 days in a row 1894. This month’s event will double that — a doubling like this is not twice as unlikely, it’s orders of magnitude more unlikely. Consider that in prior to 2008, the record length for an Adelaide heat wave in any month was 8 days (all occurring in summer). Now, in the space of less than 2 years, we’ve had a 15 day event in Mar 2008 (a 1 in 3000 year event), a 9 day sequence in Jan/Feb 2009 (which included 8 days above 40°C and 13 consecutive days above 33°C), and now, another 8 day event in Nov 2009. How unusual is this? There have been 6 previous heat waves that lasted 8 days, many more of 7 days, more still of 6, and so on — the return time is logarithmically related to it’s length. Given these data, and the fact that the latest spring event has equaled previous all-time summer records (!), and the alarm bells should rightly be ringing. Statistically speaking, it’s astronomically unlikely that such a sequence of rare heat waves would occur by chance, if the climate wasn’t warming. But of course, it is. […]
Great work guys, keep it up.
Thanks for giving me a new word of the day : freeper. Cracks me up, and now I am off to read about how the free software foundation is a giant leftwing conspiracy Can’t wait 🙂
—-
Why is it that Global Warming hystericalists commit the same mistakes that they attack Global Warming skeptics with?
Nobody with an objective basis would claim that 10 years is a sufficient time period to make judgment. BUT neither is the 150 years that Global Warming hystericalists use for their promotion–which coincidentally marks the end of the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest period in recent times. So of course the Earth has warmed in the last 150 years–that’s how cycles work.
The Earth operates on much longer time frames, and if you look at the last 10,000 years, you’ll see that this rapid increase in temperatures in the last 30 to 150 years is nothing unusual.
So Global Warming hystericalists shouldn’t Cherry Pick data!!!
—-
“you’ll see that this rapid increase in temperatures … is nothing unusual.”
You’ll see no such thing.
God, you are stupid. There’s just no other reasonable or honest response to you.
Do you follow international events much? Read any science? Did you read this post?
Do you read anything at all?
[…] … "Independent statisticians reject ‘global cooling’ fable " https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/independ … “Global warming stopped in 1998″ debunked https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/global-w […]
We are now in the second year of a 9 to 12 year sunspot cycle that will be followed by a near identical twin. Present measurements point to a solar minimum. The winters will grow in severity and climate will move southward, guessing, 500 to 750 miles over the coming years.
This does not mean we are entering an ice age or a mini-ice age, but the thinning of the population has begun. Scotland is losing animals, Florida is losing manatees, Poland lost about 100 citizens and Peru has loses.
This mirrors what France went through during two minimums and the min-ice age, but if you can live off potatos, don’t mind fires, you can make it.
This will last 23 years at least.
Further data and comments at nationalforestlawblog.com October Newsletter. Under my name.
Some people care and a lot don’t. Global Warmers and global cooling types are arguing while temperatures continue to drop.
Atlas Shrugged! But, I keep knocking on doors. Guess speaker tomorrow. Hope to change a few minds.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Actually, the current cooling is caused by changes in winds and air masses. Scotland is not losing species, except by the usual habitat stress. Is there anywhere we can look you up in a few years and laugh at you?
I really loved that post, I am a little confused, and have a small question. May I send you an email?
No, but feel free to post your question. 🙂
S2
Not sure if you are talking to me or the next person.
Let’s begin where you can find some elementary research.
Nationalforestlawblog.com
October Newsletter
Under Paul Pierett
My email is at the top of the page. Please identify your subject with something like Sunspots or climate change if you wish to write. I’m not to worried about someone trying to plant a virus. I only use public libraries for spam review.. My PCs stay off line.
Since I posted my work there, I get a lot spam. I review each email.
I don’t mind the jokes now. Each day, that which I predicted comes true.
I don’t want the last laugh. Having studied the history during solar minimums; it is very unpleasant for the population of all animals in general.
I have warned each governor’s office and 1/4th of the Senate 1 Nov. 14 Nov. They set aside the Cap and Trade energy bill. By chance I guess.
Numerous scientists I mailed my work to have dumped Mann and Gore. On and on it goes. I appreciate the skeptics.
For every official office I have mailed this work to (about 150+) I have probably 15 letters acknowledging they received it. Of those, 5 were taking action on behalf of their business or population. The others were global warming cap and trade standard spill letters..
We are dropping an average of 1/2 degree a year since 2000. We are around 33 degrees for the winter, but the NOAA doesn’t post their winter temps average until March.
We should have about five named storms this year due to the near zero sunspot activity. 50/50 mix of hurricanes and Tropical storms. We should see several tropical depressions. A tropical depression killed several people in Atlanta this past year.
Al Gore got a good rip in British Parliament in the past several days. A member called him a snake oil salesman. He must have read some of my emails and blogs.
I learned this past week, most heating systems in central Florida and south will probably be deficient for what is coming. I will have to switch to propane and fireplaces in the next year or two.
Have a good year if I don’t hear from you.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Paul Pierett said:
Just where did you find this nonsense? According to GISS, 2000 temperatures were 0.33 degrees C warmer than the 1951-1980 average. 2009 temperatures were 0.57 degrees C above the 1951-1980 average. I can never understand why deniers don’t check their facts before blurting their nonsense all over the blogshere. Oh I forget, of course they aren’t interested in the actual facts, just distributing any nonsense which supports their denier viewpoint.
To Ian Forrester,
I use the following address at NOAA.
Climate at a Glance, Various data requests, Annual and Winter Temperatures
.http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl (accessed February 9 to 13,
2009.
I was referred this site by a weatherman in Texas who uses it. This is where they pick up their record data. My theory is if the winters are colder, it is harder for the hurricane seasons to take off. Winter temperatures affect the overall cooling of the Atlantic Basin.
The data for this temperature request is found at:
Click to access Global%20Warming%20By%20Paul%20Pierett.pdf
Page 46
I tried to use the overall temperatures, but there was an overlap at… 55 and 56 degrees when looking for a break point for increased hurricane activity and decrease in glacier activity. Above a certain point, we have numerous and more powerful hurricanes and our Polar Region Ice Caps fall off.
I was looking for a thumb nail spot where I could pretty much guess what is going on without looking. That point is 33 degrees in our average winter temperatures. When our average winter temps reach 37, we had our worst hurricane seasons and they were longer than normal.
Polar Ice Caps dropped off and glaciers continued to melt.
Below 33 degrees, I found growth in Glacier Bay glacier activity which happened around 2002. Glacier Bay is my mirror to hurricane seasons…Hurricane seasons dropped off below 33 degrees.
The 33 degrees, per my paper, cuts it tighter that the 55 or 57 degrees in annual temperatures and is easier to use and most people understand that, especially farmers.
Farmers have to deal with British Thermal Units when the temperatures might destroy a crop here in Florida. Using 55 or 56 degrees confuses people in general audiences I speak to. 33 degrees stands out as the last point before water freezes at sea level. Floridians hate cold.
Most growers here use freezing water on their plants to cut freeze damage. Frozen water stays at 32 degrees. If the freeze is short, the plant’s fruit might make it.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
WOW, Dunning Kruger strikes again! I had a brief look at your “paper” (I couldn’t look for much longer since it was so terrible).
First thing, the G in AGW is “GLOBAL” not USA.
Secondly nowhere in your paper (page 46) is there any reference to “dropping an average of 1/2 degree a year since 2000”.
Thirdly, no serious scientists these days thinks that sunspot activity is responsible for global warming.
Your post is so convoluted and unintelligible it makes me think you have absolutely no science background. This is a typical observation in AGW deniers, the less they know about science and climate science the more they are convinced that the real scientists are wrong. See my first comment re Dunning Kruger.
For actual global temperatures please refer to here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Here is a quote from “I am not a climate change denier” Paul Pierett:
http://www.christianforumsite.com/severe-weather/23798-july-12-potential-severe-weather-central-south-central-us.html
I don’t think this denier should be taking up any more space on this blog.
Yep. Since he is completely unable to provide evidence for any of his nothing-to-do-with-the-evidence and as such nothing-to-do-with-any-facts-of-science beliefs, it is impossible to share reality with him on this blog.
I find it hard to “have a good day” when deniers like you are making a farce out of science. Climate change, which man is having a major impact on, is so serious that I get extremely angry when people like you make fun of science and scientists.
People like you, arrogant, ignorant and selfish, will make things very uncomfortable for our children and their children if we do nothing about lowering our emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. You should be ashamed to be associated with, and believing, the lies that you are supporting here and on other blogs.
Ian,
IMO Paul is either highly delusional or a Poe. I don’t see the angry, arrogant, ignorance of the usual denidiot.
Paul,
No sane, informed person would disagree with that.
As for the rest, are you a Poe?
Paul, why would you expect anyone who has a knowledge of science to answer your infantile and stupid questions?
Any scientist worthy of the name knows that anthropogenically produced green house gases (CO2 methane nitrous oxide etc) are causing an unprecedented increase in global temperatures. That is not in dispute by any intelligent and educated person.
The fact that you are denying this shows that you are both a denier and are ignorant of the very science you claim to understand.
I doubt very much that you have any science education in your background, you are probably a liberal arts student in history or Chinese pottery.
“Which is heavier in each form by volume: gas, liquid or solid, CO2 or H2O?”
Depends on temperature and pressure.
“How does CO2 work in warming the planet?”
In layman’s terms: it reduces the rate of heat loss.
“What happens to CO2 under 300 lbs of pressure?”
Depends on temperature (apart from the fact that lbs isn’t a unit for pressure, and most certainly is not a S.I. unit).
“What happens next if one adds sub zero Temperatures degrees to CO2?”
Subzero in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit?
“What is that temperature for 300 LPSI?”
What unit is LPSI?
“At what LPSI can you do this process at 70F degrees?”
What process?
“Can the earth do this or only man?”
See above.
“Why has Ozone production dropped to safe levels over the last three years?”
Please provide a reference to the inherent claim in this remark.
“Why has Ozone production dropped in steps from severe levels to safe levels over the last three years?”
Please provide reference for this statement.
“What conditions are required to produce Ozone?”
Oxygen (oxygen-containing compounds) and electromagnetic radiation (and in many cases a catalyst helps as well)
“Now that Ozone production is a safe levels, what are global warming alarmists worried about?”
Apart from going back to requiring a reference to your initial claim, AGW proponents are, and have always been, worried about rapid climate changes due to human influences, with CO2 the main driver of such changes.
“Does CO2 act as a multiplier to Ozone in a global warming period or are they acting separately?”
Ozone’s importance lies mainly in the absorbance of UV radiation, thus reducing this radiation reaching the earth and being transformed into heat radiation. However, in the troposphere it mainly acts as a greenhouse gas. It thus depends on where it is located. Rephrase your question!
“Global warming is based on earth factors or solar factors or both?”
Gee, both of course.
“The other two global warming gases are?”
There are MANY more than just two more. In order of importance we have CO2 and H2O, methane, NOx, ozone(depending on where it is located) and CFCs
“What is the third and it is a true pollutant?”
In principle ALL are pollutants, it’s all in the concentrations.
So many questions, so few that actually make sense. I guess you failed the basic chemistry class?
You taught chemistry?? Poor students…
Did you by chance have people like Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts in your class? It would explain quite a bit.
Simply put…
Only the village fool (and spammers with special interests) still question human-induced climate change, the seriousness of it, or the cause.
The rest of us have had the analytic skills to evaluate the information and have moved on to discussions and decision-making about what exactly must be done to intervene on climate change.
WOW, one of the worst cases of Dunning Kruger I have come across in a long time.
He even boasts about having taught chemistry. Please tell me where so I can warn any future students to stay well clear.
No wonder the world is getting in the mess it is if people in charge listen to idiots like Paul Pierett.
I think Ian’s guess may be off – deniers are mostly older males with no historical understanding and no ability to create beautiful pottery.
It is sad that Mr. Pierett invokes his Christian beliefs to justify his astounding ignorance. And hate.
More Pierett:
“The problem is too much population, animals and reptiles where they don’t belong and too many people. So for the next 30 years we are going to see reductions in populations… We will get rid of our … enemies.”
My what a surprise. 😦
Pierett’s beliefs are obviously not relevant to this science site.
[…] spurious 1998-claim at SkepticalScience, Coby Beck, Zeke Hausfather, RealClimate, Scott Mandia, Greenfyre (including lots more links) and Peter Sinclair of the denial crock of the week youtube […]