The Ongoing Climate Denialist Lies Repository

[lomiller]

The IPCC can't get anything right can they? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

Looks fine to me. perhaps you didn't read it before posting? if you had you would have noted this line

Gases relevant to radiative forcing only

Hint, water vapor doesn't act as a forcing...

 

[CapelDodger]

Why? What's the difference between the two?

Seriously - not these two examples - but I am seeing a huge correlation as to what some think is a valid climate scientist and what isn't, and it seems to come down to subjective judgement and/or what side of the fence one sits.

How do we determine who is valid and who isn't?

We can determine whether many individuals are valid or not. You ask the difference between Munchkin and Phil Jones, then admit it's not a serious question. Why is it not serous? Because it's obvious, of course.

So who exactly do you have a problem with? Present one example close to where the dividing line might be, someone who you think is being declared invalid because they don't fit an artificial category of "climate scientist".

 

[CapelDodger]

They are still railing on and on about it as though it were proven. They see the investigations as being "whitewashes" and therefore proof of the global conspiracy.

No surprises there then.

In the normal world "the decline", which is presented as referring to global cooling last year (despite the email being from 1999), is going to lose resonance as the world gets distinctly warmer. Their expedients are getting ever more short-term. The UAH "analysis" was corrected/adjusted/re-tuned to keep this last Jan/Feb lower than it would otherwise have been, but it'll come back to bite them in a month or two. Spencer and Christy will have to be sacrificed.

Spencer might like martyrdom, but Christy won't.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

/"From the USDA "Living Science" site:

"To be a climatologist, you need a strong background in math and physics. Courses in meteorology and climatology, as well as courses in agricultural, biological, computer, or natural sciences are part of the coursework. You need broad educational experience, because the users of climate information come from varied backgrounds. For most private consulting and many government jobs, you need a master’s or doctoral degree."

The University of Nebraska site includes the following information on climatology:

"The major in Meteorology/Climatology is designed to help you develop an understanding of atmospheric science and the processes and phenomena that result in various types of weather, the spatial and temporal patterns of weather, and the variability of climate.""

Thank you kindly.

So who exactly do you have a problem with? Present one example close to where the dividing line might be, someone who you think is being declared invalid because they don't fit an artificial category of "climate scientist".

Who said I had a problem?
I had a question yet, as usual you consider something far more sinister afoot. I thought this was an educational forum.

Paranoia is a symptom of groupthink you know?

 

[r-j]

Reading these threads, it is certainly educational.

Not much about climate, but the rest of it, it certainly is educational.

 

[Furcifer]

Looks fine to me. perhaps you didn't read it before posting? if you had you would have noted this line

Hint, water vapor doesn't act as a forcing...

And now I see why we don't talk science.

No where on this planet is steam a gas. Nowhere.

There's a delicious irony in the "Let's talk science" gang not having a clue what greenhouse gases are.

 

[Halsu]

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about water vapour's role: "Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor

And here's what the IPCC report says in the faq: "Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. "
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

 

[Poptech]

Well, this thread -- like 9/11 Truth threads and Holocaust denial threads...

Please stop with the smears it really is pathetic. I have explained many times I am not a 911 Truther,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

And your denier smear is desperate propaganda,

Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers' Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech (Spiked, UK)

AGW proponents citing the actual science, and AGW deniers either refusing to cite science at all, or dragging out a bunch of cites they don't understand, which are either crank opinions or don't actually contradict AGW.

The science has been cited repeatedly from which you choose to ignore it,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs)

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The science has been cited repeatedly from which you choose to ignore it,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

I've just looked up the first half dozen or so climate scientists listed in poptechs 500 papers.

Why are these guys not being heard exactly?
From what I understand they are climate scientists by definition (well the loose definitions outlinened), they appear peer reviewed etc, so they seem to meet all the criterion.
So why aren't they being read and discussed?

Seriously, what is wrong with the papers exactly?
Or is it simply they come from the wrong side of the scientific and/or political fence?

 

[a_unique_person]

Please stop with the smears it really is pathetic. I have explained many times I am not a 911 Truther,

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

And your denier smear is desperate propaganda,

Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers' Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech (Spiked, UK)


The science has been cited repeatedly from which you choose to ignore it,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs)

Thanks, I won't be needing to go out and find more lies to list. I think you have covered them all.

 

[Poptech]

...the things you mention are not required for the simple claim that there's conflicting information about the subject.

Oh they are very relevant to this since your whole case rests on E&E being defined as a trade journal. Please provide the following,

1. Define a trade journal.
2. Provide one publishing company source that explicitly states that E&E is not peer-reviewed (Scopus does not do this).

Are you really asking for peer reviewed scientific studies to prove such weak statements as "Wikipedia is pretty accurate on science subjects most of the time"?

Are you really providing a news opinion piece written by journalists from a science journal with the intent of passing it off as having the same credibility of a peer-reviewed scientific paper? Looks like you have nothing

Like you tend to say: "prove it".

- Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (HTML)
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
- Roland Granqvist

In a summary of their survey on the opinion about global warming among Earth scientists (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman conclude that the debate on the role of human activity is largely nonexistent, and that the challenge is “how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers” and to the public.

However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.” Furthermore, even if scientists agree that the effect of human activity is “significant,” which is the word used in the second question, they can have very different beliefs as to how large, and how dangerous, this effect is.

Therefore, it is incorrect to conclude that there are no differences between the scientists. It cannot be excluded that there are such differences, which are highly relevant for the public debate on climate policy. This is so, even if the problems related to the low-participant survey’s low response rate (30.7%) are ignored.

- Further Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
(Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
- John Helsdon

The feature article “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change,” by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, “47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming….” They then described the two-question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases.

Like I said discredited.

By the scientist's own definition actually.

Which is subjective.

No. According to the study 82% of all scientists support AGW.

As was stated above, "...even if scientists agree that the effect of human activity is 'significant,' which is the word used in the second question, they can have very different beliefs as to how large, and how dangerous, this effect is."

But the more expertise on the subject, the higher the support. This actual number wasn't mentioned on the article, but it can be seen in the graph. It seems non-publishing climate scientists are near 90% in support, and they make up for about half of climate scientists in the study.

This is purely subjective as expertise cannot be determined by a volume of published papers.

If more than four out of five share a view, it's mainstream. Subjectivity doesn't really bend that far.

This has not been established because there are tens of thousands of scientists who have not been asked these questions.

And as said, the consensus of views is much stronger among those who list climate science as their specialty. That's better than nine out of ten. Definitely good enough for "mainstream", and arguably high enough for "consensus".

So if I list my specialty as climate science you would accept it? The poll in no way demonstrates any consensus.

There's varying degrees of specialty. All the groups you mention are less specialized than "those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change".

Listing climate science as your area of expertise is meaningless. Publishing 49.9% of your papers instead of 50% in climate science is just as meaningless and you know it.

If the cartoonist's argument was backed up by peer reviewed literature, and i could find no factual errors in it, of course i would accept it.

This is hypocritical as you know for a fact not a single alarmist would even consider a skeptics position off a cartoonist's website.

Nope, he has not been refuted, in any meaningful sense. That paper you posted was plain rubbish.

Yes he refuted every nonsensical point made by the cartoonist,

John Cook: Skeptical Science (PDF) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)

If "our side" only used Greenpeace publications as our source, would you accept it?

They use Greenpeace sources all the time. FYI most greenpeace members qualifications in science or even economics are non-existent.

Heck, you don't seem to even accept a non-peer reviewed Nature article as a source in a much less scientific issue..

Why would I accept a news propaganda piece written by journalists that is pawned off as scientific research because of where it was published? It is illogical and intellectually dishonest.

 

[a_unique_person]

I've just looked up the first half dozen or so climate scientists listed in poptechs 500 papers.

Why are these guys not being heard exactly?
From what I understand they are climate scientists by definition (well the loose definitions outlinened), they appear peer reviewed etc, so they seem to meet all the criterion.
So why aren't they being read and discussed?

Seriously, what is wrong with the papers exactly?
Or is it simply they come from the wrong side of the scientific and/or political fence?

Loehle, a statistician with no training in climate science. His paper made some basic errors, but it has no impact on AGW science. All he has done is basically confirm that current warming is unprecedented. He's been heard, and ignored, since his paper has no relevance.

You will find the usual crowd of deniers, and their usual fallback since no one will publish their error filled papers, "Energy and Environment".

Just producing a laundry list of wrongness does not add up to any correctness.

 

[Poptech]

It's not a lie, it's a fact that can be proven with three easy steps,

Yes it is and here is the evidence,

Board of Directors

"The activities of The Heartland Institute are overseen by its Board of Directors, which meets quarterly."


Global Warming Experts

"Click the links below for short biographies of some of the nation's leading experts on climate change and related topics."


Policy Advisors

"The policy advisors of The Heartland Institute advise Heartland staff on research topics to pursue, conduct peer review of Heartland policy papers before their release, and serve as expert sources for Heartland's publications, government relations, and public relations efforts."


Senior Fellows

"The Heartland Institute's Senior Fellows program features some of the nation's most knowledgeable and dynamic public policy experts. Heartland Senior Fellows write scores of articles--from letters to the editor to full-blown policy studies--conduct media interviews, testify at legislative hearings, and speak to audiences ranging in size from 10 to 10,000."


Staff

The word "Staff" is self-explanatory.

Notice the global warming expert section makes absolutely no mention of any of them working or doing ANYTHING for the institution. I have stated repeatedly all those that are listed have merely presented at a heartland sponsored conference, they are not employees of the Heartland institute.

 

[Poptech]

Loehle, a statistician with no training in climate science. His paper made some basic errors, but it has no impact on AGW science. All he has done is basically confirm that current warming is unprecedented. He's been heard, and ignored, since his paper has no relevance.

Craig Loehle, Ph.D. Mathematical Ecology, Principal Scientist, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) is more than qualified to discuss climate science. He is just as qualified as Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics.

You have yet to provide a scientific method for determining "training in climate science".

Loehle has published extensively on the climate,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

- Reply To: Comments on Loehle, "correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies"
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
- Craig Loehle

Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)
- Craig Loehle

Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January 2009)
- Craig Loehle

Trend Analysis of Satellite Global Temperature Data (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1087-1098, November 2009)
- Craig Loehle

A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 94, Numbers 3-4, June 2009)
- Craig Loehle

Hofmann 2009 - "A new look at atmospheric carbon dioxide"

- The estimation of historical CO2 trajectories is indeterminate: Comment on "A new look at atmospheric carbon dioxide."
(Atmospheric Environment, 2010)
- Craig Loehle

 

[a_unique_person]

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF)
(International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

I wondered if you had this paper, and sure enough, it's there. If you really do take this paper seriously, you are a denier. There are no two ways about it. It is a bad joke, and a good example the science that denialists have to use since they can't find anything better. It not only says that CO2 does not have a greenhouse effect, it states that there is no greenhouse effect at all. Without a greenhouse effect, the earth would be a snowball.

 

[Halsu]

And your denier smear is desperate propaganda,

Again, links to Heartland do not add much to your credibility. While it's understandable that you try to play the Nazi card, Denialism is not something unique to the Holocaust deniers.

Here's a viewpoint article from European Journal of Public Health: Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

Some quotes:

HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions.

****

All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question

****

All are seen as part of a larger phenomenon of denialism.

****

The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none,5 an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.

****

Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way. The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The peer review process is seen as a tool by which the conspirators suppress dissent, rather than as a means of weeding out papers and grant applications unsupported by evidence or lacking logical thought.

****

The second is the use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge.

****

The use of fake experts is often complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations.

****

The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.

****

The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.

****

The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer.

****

The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies include the use of red herrings, or deliberate attempts to change the argument and straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented to make it easier to refute.

****

Other fallacies used by denialists are false analogy, exemplified by the argument against evolution that, as the universe and a watch are both extremely complex, the universe must have been created by the equivalent of a watchmaker and the excluded middle fallacy (either passive smoking causes a wide range of specified diseases or causes none at all, so doubt about an association with one disease, such as breast cancer, is regarded as sufficient to reject an association with any disease).

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes it is and here is the evidence,

Board of Directors

"The activities of The Heartland Institute are overseen by its Board of Directors, which meets quarterly."


Global Warming Experts

"Click the links below for short biographies of some of the nation's leading experts on climate change and related topics."


Policy Advisors

"The policy advisors of The Heartland Institute advise Heartland staff on research topics to pursue, conduct peer review of Heartland policy papers before their release, and serve as expert sources for Heartland's publications, government relations, and public relations efforts."

Another lie

Archibald, David
Scientist

Archibald a 'scientist'? Not any evidence that I can find. He is an amateur plodder sitting at a desk at home, creating the worst climate papers ever, in between his 'cancer research'.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Loehle, a statistician with no training in climate science. His paper made some basic errors, but it has no impact on AGW science. All he has done is basically confirm that current warming is unprecedented. He's been heard, and ignored, since his paper has no relevance.

Um... there is 500 of them, why are they not discussed? Are they not qualified? Are the papers not peer reviewed?

 

[a_unique_person]

Um... there is 500 of them, why are they not discussed? Are they not qualified? Are the papers not peer reviewed?

They have been discussed.

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html

Thursday, February 01, 2007

The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere

I've an important announcement to make. I have just spent the past few days looking of what may well be the worst climate paper yet produced. You heard that right – the absolute worst. This paper is so poor it makes Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) look like Einstein’s special theory of relativity in comparison.

 

[a_unique_person]

Steve McIntyre is a liar.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/cru-is-not-pleased-with-steve-mcintyre.html