Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack

Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack BPSDB

The collected videos of Peter Sinclair’s excellent series are archived at “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” .  You can also subscribe to Peter’s Youtube Channel at YouTube – greenman3610 and get them hot off the editor.

Kudos to Sinclair … his videos are obviously doing such a good job that the climate change Deniers apparently felt obliged to respond with “Hiding the “Hide the Decline,” featuring Greenman3610”

The Denier version

It opens with “Let’s start with the facts about global warming” – Denierspeak for “brace yourself for a load of drivel“, and they deliver:

• As ever, ignores the fact that a climatic trend requires a 30 data set, anything less is just weather;
  • How to decide climate trends
  • Results on deciding trends
• Cites Lindzen’s discredited work;
  • “A quick comment on Lindzen and Choi“
  • “Re-visiting climate forcing/feedback concepts…“
  • “Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is STILL Not Very High“
  • “Lindzen on Climate Feedback“
• Talks about the Medieval Warm Period, and commits 3 logical errors:
  • 1) Suggesting a regional trend was global;
    • Climate Denial Crock of the Week – “The Medieval Warming Crock”
    • Climate Myths: Medieval Warm Period
    • Myth Used as Evidence Against Global Warming
    • The “Medieval Warm Period”
  • 2) Assuming that if the MWP was natural, the current warming must be too (right, showing that one person died of natural causes “proves” that everyone else did too … like duh);
  • 3) Implying that the WMP is not well known in science, and discussed in the IPCC reports, which of course it is and was;
  • 4) Misrepresents statements by scientists which in context mean that there was “no global Medieval Warm Period” as being simply there was “no Medieval Warm Period”;
• Skips right past the fact that the global data shows that the WMP was NOT as warm as the present even for the Northern Hemisphere, let alone globally;
• Commits the Argument from ignorance fallacy by claiming that since the historical data is not as precise as current data it must therefore be completely useless;
• Tries to pass off the divergence of one of the proxy data sets (tree rings cf “hide the decline“) as being all of the proxy data sets (ie corals, ice cores, historical records, etc) , which is an outright lie;
• Tries to imply that the proxies (ie all) never reflect the instrumental record (they all do up to the 1960s, and only the tree ring data diverges thereafter), which is a lie;
• Tries to equate little statistical significance “between the years” with “no warming trend”, another lie. The reason you need a 30 year data set is precisely because there is little statistical significance between the years;
• Lies about CRU not sharing data with other scientists, which is not true. It was always available to other scientists, and 95% of it was made available to diletents who like to spend their time attacking scientists;
• Lies about alleged data destruction.

In other words, it’s a load of drivel, but then what Denier Fable isn’t?

“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.”  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.

Advertisement