Over the top with climate change denial

If you want to read some really over-the-top language by Durkin, this is worth a read.

Re: Durkin's re-drawn graphs - he's now up to version 3 in his Australian Broadcast of the 'Swindle':

(Cross-posted from 'Stoat' who has already discussed and discredited versions 1 and 2):

........

Durkin is now on "version three" of his original 'faked' graph.

However no he has been found out for 'faking' graphs - he has had to use a real one and resort to some prestidigitation (or conjuring tricks if you prefer).

For the Australian version of TGGWS to be broadcast later this week

There are clips of the programme available on the ABC website:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/default.htm

If you look at the 'Part 2' of these - 1.43 mins in you'll see Durkin is now on his third attempt at a graph of twentieth century global warming:

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/466/durkinmark3yh1.jpg

This time it comes from the 2001 IPCC report -and is now a global, rather than Northern Hemisphere one:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9473/ipcc0516dv7.jpg

As you can see from this overlay -

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6638/durkin3overlayhc8.jpg

(funny how he missed the rather more striking 'hockey stick' graph just below?)

The voiceover has changed too - he claims temperature has gone up 'about half a degree' (although this graph shows 0.8 deg C)

This time he suggests that most warming took place before 1940 - and says "after 1940 the world cooled down".

Using his favourite trick of 'zooming and panning' into a graph he seems to demonstrate this by zooming along the line to 1940 - then cutting away.

He is also suggesting that industrial production, and therefore CO2 production didn't get going until 1940. This is far from the truth of course - CO2 levels have been steadily rising since the industrial revolution.

He has now been reduced to sleight of hand to make his points - having been found out that when he forges graphs - people notice.

This gives tacit support to complaints to the IPCC that he distorted graphs in the first two transmissions of the programme - he has effectively been forced to retract these...

Durkin is due to be grilled on this after the broadcast tomorrow (8.30 p.m. Australia - effectively Thursday morning in the UK) - I'd be very interested to hear how he gets on...

Human caused Global Warming is Junk Science! Current models might lead a reasonable person to warrant continued studies, but there is not sufficient concern to make political policy which could impact our whole society and way of life. Real scientist study, but do not make policy. The ice core studies used by Algore show strong evidence that C02 follows warming, not the other way around. As for warming since 1985 from your piece, read the following article on satellite temperature measurements:

http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd12mar97_1.htm

Global Climate Monitoring: The Accuracy of Satellite Data

March 12, 1997

Recently, much scientific debate has focused on the global temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere as measured by orbiting satellites. And while these data are exceedingly precise, verified by multiple satellite observations, and balloon measurements taken in-situ, they reveal no discernable warming trend in the Earth's lower atmosphere over the last 18+ years.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center) and Dr. John Christy (The University of Alabama in Huntsville) have used the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) flying aboard NOAA's TIROS-N weather satellites to construct a continuous record of lower tropospheric (from the surface to about 4 miles) temperatures since the first MSU was launched in late 1978. The lower tropospheric temperature trend has been calculated to be -0.04 degrees C/decade.

In the latest (March 13, 1997) edition of Nature, two scientists, James Hurrell and Kevin Trenberth, report that sea-surface temperatures monitored by buoys and ships at various locations in the tropics show, for the same period as the satellite record, a warming trend of +0.12 deg. C/decade, in apparent disagreement with the satellites. This so-called "disagreement" between satellite and surface temperature measurements is not new.

Wow, and that report is only ten years old! Not to mention Spencer is now also a supporter of Intelligent Design, so you will have to excuse me for not taking him seriously.

"Real scientist study, but do not make policy"

Scientists not only study, but also teach the public, politicians and influence or make policies. It is necessary for scientists to counter wrong ideas and misunderstandings of climate science that infest public discourse.

Of course scientists have generally a large say in policy, and have for over 200 years in western societies, to greater or lesser degrees (usually greater, and growing influence). The EPA, FAA, Department of Agriculture, FCC, etc, have large sections of their mandates that are completely driven by science, not whatever flimflam even a majority of people or congressmen believe.

Why is that, do you think? It is because most politicians, when push comes to shove, think it is the best way to conduct policy: trust and let the people who know most about the issue make the policies, under an appropriate legislative oversight. For awhile, the opposite occurred with regards to climate change, thanks partly to the seriousness and magnitude of the problem, but also to a well funded disinformation lobby the likes of which has had no equal in history, but politicians now realize they must oversee and regulate the composition of the atmosphere, and are struggling with the best ways of doing that. Scientists need to play their traditional role in helping form these policies.

I feel so sorry for anyone who says the science is settled on anything. Sure, the concensus now is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are primarily reponsible for the warming we're having, but let's never stop researching this important issue, even if it continues to make the greenhouse gas warming case even stronger. Never say science is settled - that in itself is being a denier of potential new knowledge. At the same time, we ought to start cutting our greenhouse gas emissions, if for no other reason than to cut our oil import dependence.

Journal SCIENCE article July 3, 2007

Summary of the Science article from a news report I read: 'Natural Warming Trends may be as significant as human-caused warming' Since this is from such a respected, peer-reviewed journal as Science, I thought it significant:

"Using the world's oldest recovered DNA, a new study suggests Greenland was much warmer than previously thought during the last Ice Age and natural global warming trends may be as significant as human-induced warming.

The international study, published Thursday in the journal Science, was co-written by University of Alberta glaciologist Dr. Martin Sharp.

During their research, a team of international scientists retrieved ancient DNA found at the bottom of a two-kilometer ice sheet in Greenland.

The sample came from trees, plants, and insects of a boreal forest estimated to be between 450,000 and 900,000 years old.

The DNA samples suggest the temperature of the southern Greenland boreal forests was probably between 10 C in summer and -17 C in winter. By comparison, the temperatures at the ice surface in Greenland today are -8 C in summer and -30 C in winter.

"To have a forest at this location we would probably have had to melt at least the southern one-third of the Greenland ice sheet," Sharp wrote in an email to CTV.ca.

"It provides further evidence that natural processes can and do produce climate change, and that this can be large enough to produce effects similar to those predicted to result from anthropogenic warming."

The reduced glacier cover in the region also meant the global ocean was probably between one and two metres higher during that time compared to current levels.

"These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken, and what we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought," Sharp said in a release.

While the study does suggest a natural warming progression is significant, Sharp cautioned the research does not prove the current global warming trend is not human induced.

"It could mean that our current warming is the result of both natural processes and human influences, and we may be heading for even bigger temperature increases than we previously thought," Sharp said.

"Both natural processes and human influences are involved in the climate changes that we have seen over the past 50 years."

Sharp explained the ice found beneath the glacier created a kind of natural "freezer" that preserved the ancient DNA.

In previous years, scientists had found older organic matter but none that were older than the uncontaminated Greenland samples.

Control samples from the Canadian Arctic helped researchers identify the age of the Greenland samples.

Sharp's also helped to determine the DNA samples were from an actual forest in Greenland and were not from plant matter carried on the wind from other parts of the world."

There is a big problem when people build models using one variable! Limiting variables is done when someone want to sell that one thing. The earth's climate is impacted by many different variables and C02 is probably a small one since it is small part of the atmosphere. I don't hear many of the global warming religious cult discussing that the South Pole has cooled since measurements began 57 years ago. If the North Pole is warming and South Pole is cooling, I think that scientist would make the rotation of the part of the model. I sure most of you are familiar with how a top spins. Like a top the earth is not a perfect sphere (far from it.) With the large scare of the earth a little wobble (which could last for years) could certainly make a significant difference between the distance from the sun from the bottom to the top of the earth. There is a theory that the rotation of the earth is responsible for ice ages. The science is far from settled.

IPCC concensus on Antarctic ice, July 2007 draft report:

"Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to GAIN IN MASS (my emphysis) due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet balance (10.7)"

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html

Climate Change??

DearEditor, July 11/07

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Canada

Your readers might be interested in these websites.

Please paste these links in your browser.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288195,00.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conten…

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/opinion/06fri1.html?hp

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_arti…

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070705/greenland_…

http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backyard

||||
And he's just getting started. Durkin, who has been pilloried for naively swallowing almost every myth and falsehood propagated by the fossil-fuel-powered anti-science lobbies, does so once more, even dragging out the aging and discredited Oregon Petition, for Pete's sake. (The one 17,000 alleged "scientists," including Dr. Pierce and Honeycutt, among others, signed decrying a lack of evidence for climate change.)
||||

It's worth looking a little more closely at the "Oregon Institute

What is the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? It was set up in 1980 by a religious crank by the name of Arthur Robinson. In its early years, the OISM focused much of its attention on a new theory that Robinson had developed regarding "molecular clocks" that he thought might influence aging. It also became involved in issues related to nuclear war and civil defense. It published two books, Nuclear War Survival Skills (foreword by H-bomb inventor Edward
Teller), which argues that "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated" into "demoralizing myths." Robinson also co-authored another civil defense book titled Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, in collaboration with Gary North, who like Robinson is a
conservative Christian. North is also a prolific author of doomsday books with titles such as None Dare Call It Witchcraft; Conspiracy: A Biblical View; Rapture Fever; and How You Can Profit From the Coming Price Controls. Following his collaboration with Robinson, North built a web-based marketing empire built around apocalyptic predictions that
the Y2K bug would make the dawn of the 21st century "the year the earth stands still." North predicted that computer failures would cause "cascading cross defaults, where banks cannot settle accounts with each other, and the banking system goes into gridlock,worldwide," in addition to disruptions of oil supplies, electricity,manufacturing and public utility systems. "We are facing a breakdown
of civilization if the power grid goes down," North predicted in late1999, boasting, "I was the only person saying this on a Web site in early 1998, although a few sites do today."

In 1988, Robinson's wife died suddenly and he took over the home-schooling of their six children, leading to a profitable side business. He assembled a set of 22 CD-ROM disks containing public domain versions of various books and educational materials such as the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Robinson Crusoe and McGuffey's Readers,
which the family now markets as a home-schooling kit. The kits sell for $200 each, and Robinson says the curriculum has been purchased by more than 32,000 families. The OISM website markets the curriculum as a way to "teach your children to teach themselves and to acquire superior knowledge as did many of America's most outstanding citizens
in the days before socialism in education." The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families
who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support."

Creationist nonsense or paleontology? Which is better? I suppose it depends who is paying.

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson,
Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson (the boy who benefited from a 1911 education).

A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was
uncharacteristic of scientific papers. This deliberate attempt to bolster one's credentials is typical of the denier movement. Tim Ball, retired Geography professor of Winnipeg passes himself off in "Swindle" as a Porefessor of Climatology at Winnipeg, even though there is no such thing.

n reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in
the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary,
along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank
that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan
administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled
"Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

So essentially, what has happened is that a bunch of crank christian survivalists with no climate expertise have holed up in some place called Cave Junction, Oregon, and put together a sensationalising scam petition using material intended to deceive and a method of data collection designed to foster fraud, to push their wacky ideas and raise money from the far right.

If you look at their website today, two of their listed board directors are actually dead.

And this is held up as the "dissent" on AGW.

You have to laugh.

Fran

The Maunder minimum coincided with a distinct lack of sunspots. Mike Lockwood probably has no explanation for this, although I don't have time to read his thing now. Something about atmospheric pollution making it a "whole different ballgame". Tenuous. 11-year cycles are a bit short, systems have lag, and air temperature measurements are dodgy anyway.

You (Americans)all seem to know better and have the ultimate answer. The only thing I am sure, is that I don't know all. You know better about marketing, that I give you, but geography, philosophy, current world events, thinking out of the box, and the truth to the real problem, you are far, far off in your predetermined "knowledge" of how things really work. I feel sorry your government clouds your mind with trillions of dolllars of "information", making you, even if you tried, incapabale to do anything.

Temperature trends for the 48 lower US states from 1895 to present is depicted here:

http://www.trainweather.com/48states-tempavg1895-2006.html

These average temperature graphs from 1895 to 2006 for the 48 contiguous US states were obtained from the NOAA-NCDC website (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/state.html). I screen-captured each individual state's data for display on this website. The states are listed alphabetically. Using temperature trends for the past 100 years (the green line), I counted 35 states with an upward temperature trend, 9 with a downward temperature trend (mostly in the south and east) and 4 with no change. Some of the trends were slight, both upward and downward. Please go to the NOAA-NCDC site to run your own data (you can change time periods, use specific months, trend precipitation, etc.). The site is always updated.

Looking at industrial fossil fuel Co2 emissions, http://carto.eu.org it seems that todays maximum is 7,250,000,000 m/t and of this coal emissions are 2,372,500,000 m/t which is equal the the 2007 Co2 output of the earths 6.5 billion population. Estimated at 1kg per head per day.
Adding the Co2 outputs of the animal,human/cattle/sheep/goats 4,679,300,000 m/t to the total fossil fuel contruibution, oil, coal, gas 7,250,000,000 m/t we get a total Co2 contribution of 9,622,500,000 m/t anually
This number does not include the contribution of the oceans, which because of overfishing of the bottom of the food chain, are now outputting Co2 rather than absorbing it.
What should we be attempting to clean up? A few tonnes of coal emissions, the human population, or maybe the animals, cattle mostly because of the methane, and the 241 gallons of water it takes to produce 1 quart of milk.
I saw the program, was a bit fed up with the announcer, and the smiling executioner.
Cheers MaxG

To say that science is not settled confuses fringe science and foundational theoretical science with the end-product of conventional settled interpretations of data.

If a meteor is going to collide with the Earth its trajectory is indeed settled. Possibly a UFO will steer it away at the last minute. Claiming it's unscientific to say you can study trajectories, dragging in the inability to fully reconcile general relativity's gravity with quantum mechanics, etc., are all anti-scientific blather posing as somehow being "a real scientific attitude."

Note that putting economics at the base of the science pyramid, as the market fundamentalists do, puts the least sciencelike thing in the foundation. You can't build on that.