Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[Yonivore]

LOL I'm pretty sure no one is doing that. It made the news and you jumped right on it. Lots of papers make the news. If you had seen one that said something that you didn't agree with, you wouldn't have posted it. Don't even try to say otherwise.

That's simply not true.

I've never read pro-anthropogenic global warming news article that actually linked to the scientific paper from which the sensational conclusions were drawn.

They simply quote "studies" or "scientists." The papers don't actually make the news, what the media wants the papers to say is all that makes the news.

I said it was a good paper. I don't particularly understand many of the specifics of the dendrochronology aspects but some people whom I know that do were pretty excited about it.

I doubt they give two s bout MY review, but there will be responses (the scientists who will write them have already posted their thoughts online - as well as others) and they will likely pay attention to them. Thats how the peer review system works.

But, yet, you've already declared them wrong. Perhaps you should wait for the professionals to write their responses and get them peer-reviewed.

And, more important than the "regional" aspects of the paper, isn't the suggestion the amount of forcing caused by variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun aren't being given the prominence they deserve in the models, pretty significant?

Seems to me to be the big deal here.

[MannyIsGod]

That's simply not true.

I've never read pro-anthropogenic global warming news article that actually linked to the scientific paper from which the sensational conclusions were drawn.

They simply quote "studies" or "scientists." The papers don't actually make the news, what the media wants the papers to say is all that makes the news.

Thats laughable. That idea that peer reviewed science is somehow hidden is flat out laughable.

But, yet, you've already declared them wrong. Perhaps you should wait for the professionals to write their responses and get them peer-reviewed.

And, more important than the "regional" aspects of the paper, isn't the suggestion the amount of forcing caused by variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun aren't being given the prominence they deserve in the models, pretty significant?

Seems to me to be the big deal here.

Well, I am one of the professionals. I've read the initial responses. The actual papers will be the same ideas.

Actually, the paper pretty much states that anthropogenic forcing is the strongest forcing even if it overstates the previous solar changes. Apparently you didn't understand the paper you were linked to. Maybe you should leave it to the professionals?

[MannyIsGod]

Its really not that hard to understand. The amount of forcing change they are looking at is on the millennial time scale while the anthropogenic forcing they compare it to is over 250 years. Simple math takes 6 w/m^2 over 2000 years and shrinks it to .75 W/M^2 over the same 250 years for the 1.6 w/m^2 from anthropogenic factors. You read "hotter in the past" and extrapolated it to mean that the authors said it was hotter now because of natural forcings.

Comformation bias at its best.

[MannyIsGod]

At least you're not alone in the error, Yoni. All of your best buds are too.

Surprise: Fox News Fails Paleoclimatology
BLOG ››› 3 HOURS AND 49 MINUTES AGO ››› JOCELYN FONG


24

Demonstrating how easy it is for reckless media outlets to foster confusion about climate change, Fox News again misrepresented a scientific paper last night, claiming it provides "more evidence for global cooling." Over the past several years, Fox has repeatedly pushed the claim that "the Earth is actually cooling."

From last night's edition of Special Report:



Here's what Special Report anchor Bret Baier neglected to mention:

The study, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change, wasn't about "global" anything. It estimated temperatures going back 2,000 years by analyzing the density of tree rings taken only from northern Finland and Sweden. Moreover, the record they produced only reflects temperatures between June and August. This is important because, as the paper states, the impact of orbital forcing, a key driver of temperature, "varies considerably over time, space and with season." For instance, the influence should "diminish towards lower Northern Hemisphere la udes" and show "substantial weakening ... towards the tropics," the authors wrote. According to scientists at RealClimate.org, "long-term cooling trends" are not seen in tropical records. The paper also noted that "Twentieth-century Scandinavian warming is relatively small compared with most other Northern Hemisphere high-la ude regions," further underscoring that records for this region do not establish global trends. One of the scientists involved in the study told HuffPo blogger Bob Ward: "Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct."
The "cooling trend" Fox reported does not reflect what is happening now, but what took place prior to the industrial age. The study found "a long-term cooling trend" in northern Scandinavian summer temperatures "of -0.31 °C per 1,000years (±0.03 °C) over the 138BC-AD1900 period." Scientists estimate historic temperatures from tree rings (and other "proxies") because humans didn't start directly measuring temperature until the mid-1800s. Since then, our thermometers, averaged globally, have shown substantial warming, particularly in the past few decades. The paper does not call this recent warming into question but rather tries to paint a picture of what happened before it. Cooling over this region and timescale is "theoretically expected," said RealClimate, though the magnitude of the change in the latest study is greater than previous estimates.
Prior to Fox News' report, the right-wing website Newsbusters published a post on the study and asked if "America's global warming-obsessed media will pay any attention to this new information." Newsbusters laughably declared that the study "thoroughly debunks global warming."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07...atology/187086

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-...b_1667338.html

SMH

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are no papers about ocean acidification, animal adaptation, sea levels, ecosystems, agriculture, weather patterns or anything else about negative out comes dues to climate change. The weather itself the last 5+ years has just been wonderful don't worry about it. Manny. Everything is peachy It hasn't warmed in 15 years just ask Darrin except when hes not saying that at that particular time.

[MannyIsGod]

[boutons_deux]

Study Shows Two-Thirds of Americans Want the Government to Act on Climate Change, and More

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10317...hange-and-more

of course, what Human-Americans want is trumped by what Corporate-American carbon extractors want.

[DarrinS]

Study Shows Two-Thirds of Americans Want the Government to Act on Climate Change, and More

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10317...hange-and-more

of course, what Human-Americans want is trumped by what Corporate-American carbon extractors want.

That website is a leftist rag.

[mavs>spurs]

[Jacob1983]

Why does global warming/climate change have to be 100 percent caused by evil man? Why is it stupid for a person to think that just maybe it's a natural cycle and man's fault is very low on the matter?

Is the gloom and doom just so going green and global warming day after tomorrow hippies can make money off of the fad?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why does global warming/climate change have to be 100 percent caused by evil man? Why is it stupid for a person to think that just maybe it's a natural cycle and man's fault is very low on the matter?

Is the gloom and doom just so going green and global warming day after tomorrow hippies can make money off of the fad?

It's called quantification and scientists do it. You can tell how much radiation various molecules in the atmosphere absorb and how much they emit. You can quantify how much fossil fuel is consumed, how much is emitted by volcanic/oceanic/etc activity, etc.

That is what scientists are doing: figuring out the variables and quantifying them. It has nothing to do with hippies and everything to do with the greatest scientific minds of this country.

[Jacob1983]

Again, why can't it just be more of a natural process/cycle rather than because humans are driving cars and have factories and nuclear power plants running?
Why do the hippies want the gloom and doom outlook? Wouldn't people want it to be a natural cycle or process rather than because humans drive cars and do other ?

I think it's natural and I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to look at any links or suggestions anyone suggests or recommends. If you look at the history of the Earth, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling, that is enough evidence for me to think that it's probably just natural and humans have probably made an impact but not a catastrophic or planet ending impact on climate change. Thank you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, why can't it just be more of a natural process/cycle rather than because humans are driving cars and have factories and nuclear power plants running?
Why do the hippies want the gloom and doom outlook? Wouldn't people want it to be a natural cycle or process rather than because humans drive cars and do other ?

I think it's natural and I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to look at any links or suggestions anyone suggests or recommends. If you look at the history of the Earth, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling, that is enough evidence for me to think that it's probably just natural and humans have probably made an impact but not a catastrophic or planet ending impact on climate change. Thank you.

You act like they do not consider the natural cycles. They do.

It's quite obviously that you are the type that wills what they want to believe rather than following empirical evidence. As such it's pointless to try and convince you.

[Wild Cobra]

Study Shows Two-Thirds of Americans Want the Government to Act on Climate Change, and More

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10317...hange-and-more

of course, what Human-Americans want is trumped by what Corporate-American carbon extractors want.

LOL...

Thom Hartmann...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

he doesn't know what the word credibility means...

LOL...

LOL...

Notice the study isn't linked...

[Yonivore]

Wouldn't people want it to be a natural cycle or process rather than because humans drive cars and do other ?

You can't tax nature and send its money to the UN.

I think it's natural and I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to look at any links or suggestions anyone suggests or recommends. If you look at the history of the Earth, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling, that is enough evidence for me to think that it's probably just natural and humans have probably made an impact but not a catastrophic or planet ending impact on climate change. Thank you.

Egads! Common sense.

[Jacob1983]

And why do the so-called tolerant open minded liberals who preach equality 24/7 label people that think global warming is just a natural process idiots? The bigotry is ridiculous. I demand an apology now.

[boutons_deux]

" I demand an apology now."

You and Gecko will be waiting a long time. As Dan's article pointed out, demanding and not receiving an apology is a sign of weakness, wimp.

Global warming can be, has been, a natural process.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...termediate.htm

With the hilariously ST AGW denier "Most Used Climate Myths": thermometer

[SnakeBoy]

Again, why can't it just be more of a natural process/cycle rather than because humans are driving cars and have factories and nuclear power plants running?
Why do the hippies want the gloom and doom outlook? Wouldn't people want it to be a natural cycle or process rather than because humans drive cars and do other ?

I think it's natural and I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to look at any links or suggestions anyone suggests or recommends. If you look at the history of the Earth, the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling, that is enough evidence for me to think that it's probably just natural and humans have probably made an impact but not a catastrophic or planet ending impact on climate change. Thank you.

The reality of the science is that it isn't going to be catastrophic or planet ending. I have no doubt we are increasing co2 levels and that has some impact on the climate but I part ways with the global warming zealots who blame every storm on global warming and use doomsday scare tactics to promote a political agenda.

[Wild Cobra]

The reality of the science is that it isn't going to be catastrophic or planet ending. I have no doubt we are increasing co2 levels and that has some impact on the climate but I part ways with the global warming zealots who blame every storm on global warming and use doomsday scare tactics to promote a political agenda.

Absolutely. These people are dangerous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The reality of the science is that it isn't going to be catastrophic or planet ending. I have no doubt we are increasing co2 levels and that has some impact on the climate but I part ways with the global warming zealots who blame every storm on global warming and use doomsday scare tactics to promote a political agenda.

So how do you explain the National Academy of Sciences position? Or the 255 members that independently affirmed their position? How do you explain the hundreds of unvisersity meteorological programs that hold the same position?

How do you discount the obvious economic interests of Exxon and other oil interests or the think tanks they use as fronts? How do you explain their funding campaigns based on confirmation bias?

It's interesting that all of the people with concerns about our fossil fuel consumption point to scientists while those such as yourself point to strawmen such as Al Gore?

It's interesting that those such as yourself use the same brain to accuse others of political interest and ignore the obvious economic interests of those you support.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem is when you start using words like catastrophic or planet ending. No major scientific organization holds views that human life is in danger on this planet due to climate change so to say like "planet ending" is a pure strawman most of the time. Furthermore, using words like catastrophic interchangeably with "planet ending" is a false equivocation. There are many catastrophic results that will occur from even mild climate change that don't mean the planet has to end.

[Jacob1983]

I laugh at the global warming loyalists that about it evil man when some dumbass starts a fire on the West Coast. How can like that be blamed on humans driving ing cars? The blame should be on the dumbass that either intentionally or unintentionally started the fire.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I laugh at the global warming loyalists that about it evil man when some dumbass starts a fire on the West Coast. How can like that be blamed on humans driving ing cars? The blame should be on the dumbass that either intentionally or unintentionally started the fire.

You still haven't talked about the scientists. How about you regale us again about Al Gore.

This is not an issue of faith.

[Yonivore]

The problem is when you start using words like catastrophic or planet ending. No major scientific organization holds views that human life is in danger on this planet due to climate change so to say like "planet ending" is a pure strawman most of the time. Furthermore, using words like catastrophic interchangeably with "planet ending" is a false equivocation. There are many catastrophic results that will occur from even mild climate change that don't mean the planet has to end.

Maybe not but, I've once again, come across a good example of the type of commentary I read that leads me to believe the AGCC crowd is, at the very least, trying to bias the coverage and cause the media to exaggerate the effects of AGCC or global warming in general.

DEFINITELY NOT A GREEN WEENIE

I’ve drawn attention several times here to the fine science and policy blog of Roger Pielke Jr at the University of Colorado, but I’ve been remiss in bringing to the attention of Power Line readers an equally worthy blog of another environmental writer who departs frequently and pointedly from the party line: journalist Keith Kloor, whose Collide-A-Scape blog is definitely worth bookmarking and following on a regular basis. (You can and should also follow Keith on Twitter @keithkloor). Keith is a long-time environmental journalist who was an editor for several years at Audubon magazine, and has published in Science, Smithsonian, and elsewhere. Nowadays he freelances from New York and teaches journalism at NYU.

Keith is neither a climate skeptic nor the complete critic of environmentalism that I am, but like Andy Revkin at the New York Times he shoots straight on the issues, frequently calls out environmentalists for their distortions, hypocrisies, and short-sightedness, and whacks the media for sensationalism. I think it is possible that Keith is the originator of the wonderfully useful phrase “climate porn” to describe the overhyping of climate scares by the climateers and their sycophants in the media. Wish I had thought of that! As he says at the end of this post about the dubious legacy of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (50 years old now), “The world’s complex environmental issues demand open minds, fresh perspectives, and less growling.” Needless to say, Keith often provokes less than friendly responses from the environmentally correct.

His latest post a couple days ago gets the energy story of the moment just right, namely, that we are in the early innings of a renaissance of hydrocarbon energy (oil, gas, coal) that is going to run over environmentalists like a (diesel-powered) freight train. And via Twitter today he brings to our attention a tart commentary of the state climatologist of Texas, debunking the distorted claim promoted by a NOAA press release that last summer’s heat wave in Texas was made twenty times worse by greenhouse gases, which naturally the media dutifully reported. And people wonder if our government science agencies are politicized?

I commend Kloor's latest post and the Texas State Climatologist's "tart commentary" for your reading.

It's the type of commentary that strikes me as a reasonable example of just how the media is trying to drive the climate debate in the direction of alarmism and it doesn't do your side of the argument any favors and certainly makes it harder for you to make any progress in here.