Fake Skeptics & Serial Climate Change Disinformation

[Michael Hardner]

Welcome stamps... That is a good question.

I for one am ready to do that.

[wyly]

Welcome stamps... That is a good question.

I for one am ready to do that.

what happened to the last politician that suggested a carbon tax, (hint: he's sitting in the 2nd row behind bob rae)...this like the healthcare issue everyone complains nothing is getting done to improve the situation but no one wants to higher taxes to pay for the improvements... Edited December 6, 2011 by wyly

[TimG]

why couldn't we come up with something as simple as a 3 cent per litre alternate fuel research tax ? I don't think something as small as that would have the negative impact on our economy that a flat carbon tax would that would be funneled to other countries without any real benefit to Canada.

I don't have any conceptual objection to carbon tax if it is revenue neutral (i.e. that means there is no extra money to be funnelled anywhere).

However the reality is carbon taxes are never offered on their own. They are invariably bundled with promises to reduce emissions that cannot be met without engaging in trickery called carbon offsets. Politicians peddling carbon taxes are also likely to piss away a lot of money on various alternative energy scams such as feed in tariffs.

Carbon taxes also tend to disproportionately impact certain industries. This means that special consideration needs to be given for those industries unless you are willing to give up the jobs and income that goes with those industries. For example, 25% of the cement used in BC is now imported from jurisdictions with no such tax. This creates the illusion of reduced emissions in BC when all that has happened is the emissions are happening elsewhere and the price we pay is in jobs and a smaller tax base.

What this all means is a modest carbon tax will do nothing about emissions and introducing one in the name of reducing emissions is a cynical exercise.

Edited December 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

I don't have any conceptual objection to carbon tax if it is revenue neutral (i.e. that means there is no extra money to be funnelled anywhere).

realities and trade-offs; e.g. Australia's plan effective July,2012: a degree of political expediency dictated exempting vehicle gasoline from the carbon tax... effectively projecting for an anticipated budget impact... with mitigating strategies to follow.

However the reality is carbon taxes are never offered on their own. They are invariably bundled with promises to reduce emissions that cannot be met without engaging in trickery called carbon offsets.

sweeping claims that don't apply across the board. Past MLW discussion has shown the emissions reduction results the European Union ETS has had. And no, again, I personally do not favour 'cap™'; rather, my leanings are toward 'tax&dividend'.

Politicians peddling carbon taxes are also likely to piss away a lot of money on various alternative energy scams such as feed in tariffs.

ah yes, the continued TimG drumbeat against alternative energy... with more broad-sweeping claim. The hugely successful FIT programs in Germany/France/Spain counter your claim. Certainly, typical North American FIT programs have been wanting; however, the Ontario 2009 FIT has received positive review as compared to the successful FIT programs within Germany/France/Spain.

Carbon taxes also tend to disproportionately impact certain industries. This means that special consideration needs to be given for those industries unless you are willing to give up the jobs and income that goes with those industries. For example, 25% of the cement used in BC is now imported from jurisdictions with no such tax. This creates the illusion of reduced emissions in BC when all that has happened is the emissions are happening elsewhere and the price we pay is in jobs and a smaller tax base.

the heavy CO2 polluters are the main industry targets - of course. Your example speaks to past MLW discussions that highlighted the effective out-sourcing of emissions by developed countries... hence, that 'job loss/smaller tax base' is already a part of the mix even before considerations of a carbon tax.

What this all means is a modest carbon tax will do nothing about emissions and introducing one in the name of reducing emissions is a cynical exercise.

nonsense. The degree of effectiveness depends on targets... whether voluntary (without conditions), voluntary (with conditions), or... ultimately, binding. The Australia deployment starts with a non-conditional voluntary target; one that will move up conditionally dependent on what other countries voluntarily do. I expect even the mere suggestion that China is now offering tentative acceptance to binding emission reduction levels has you reeling!

[TimG]

answers are readily available in the two links of prior posts I keep repeating... enjoy: here & here

I have explained many times that your responses do not address my point in any way. I have even gone so far as to explain what kind of counter argument would actually address my point. Evasive crap like this is why I think you are an idiot or a liar.

[waldo]

it's all in the links provided; no evasion Timmay... other than yours, that is. Here I thought you wouldn't evade my last post, completely. I thought you might bite... on sumthin! At a minimum, I was sure you wouldn't stand for me countering your unsupported claim concerning 'feed in tariffs (FIT), where you puffed up and sweepingly asserted that, as you stated, "feed in tariffs are an alternative energy scam". I just didn't think you'd evade the post in its entirety... and resort to your typical distraction routine.

speaking of evasion, are you getting closer to (finally) offering your alternative principal causal link to GW/CC... one other than CO2?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I'm just a lurker, and I probably lean more to the skeptical side of this debate, but lets say that man made global warming is a reality.....

The world is warming.

Humans influence it.

Fact.

The debate is what we should do about it and to what degree.

why couldn't we come up with something as simple as a 3 cent per litre alternate fuel research tax ? I don't think something as small as that would have the negative impact on our economy that a flat carbon tax would that would be funneled to other countries without any real benefit to Canada.... we could tackle the problem ourselves and reap the benefits here... we have a lot of smart people in this country so why can't we as a country come up with our own system and quit arguing over the science and just move forward....

You don't think the oil lobby would create yet another grass roots facade the spread misinformation and create false skeptics to protect their 100's of Trillions of dollars to be made off petroleom? Haven't you noticed that hydrogen fuel cells were only really BIG news when big oil was trying to kill electric car laws in california? They were promoting them because they knew that the viability of hydrogen was 50 years off, letting them milk the oil cow longer.

Edited December 7, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TimG]

it's all in the links provided;

Well that confirms it. You are complete idiot spouting about stuff you know nothing about. If you actually understood the mathematics of regression you would know that your links do not address my argument in any way.

[waldo]

as much as it showcases your skeptical failings, I have no intention of continuing to feed your distraction by, once again, enabling you to jack another thread with your McIntyre parroting obsession. Most certainly, I've already stated everything needed in discussing your latest shilling efforts for your hero McIntyre's, 'false controversy for controversy's sake'... see here, and here.

[Michael Hardner]

Sigh...

I suggested a new way for this discussion to go, but instead we're back at another impasse and the insults are coming up again.

Should we reopen the discussion on stats then ?

[waldo]

a short while back MLW member BubberMiley started up a thread that highlighted the relatively recent Berkely BEST project results - which provided another confirmation on the veracity of the existing global land surface temperature trends that have shown global warming and continue to show global warming... increasing. Certainly, this fueled a great disappointment within the fake skeptic world, particularly given the past antics of the BEST lead author, a renowned "skeptic". Clearly, fake skeptics had huge expectations that, finally, they... and their clownish leader, TV weatherman Anthony Watts, would be vindicated. For years on end, Watts had a personal crusade to discredit the U.S. surface temperature record, going so far as to throw fraud accusations at scientists. Of course, the Watts undertaking, the "citizens grass-work surfacestations" initiative, was the cornerstone of the crusade... one that relied, essentially, on no actual in-depth data analysis... instead, relying on camera pictures... simple graphic images of station locations. Yup, why would fake skeptics look at the actual data and perform actual data analysis... they had picture snaps! (why... there's one guy here on MLW that just revels in doing analysis by 2D picture! )

now, here on MLW, we had a lot of fun beating on this fake skeptic canard, even drawing on actual formal NOAA responses to Watts' nonsense concerning UHI, so-called station dropout, spatial variability, etc. But the usual MLW suspects wouldn't relent... and, of course, they reappeared in Bubber's recent MLW thread about the BEST project results. Interestingly, as did the denialsphere, these MLW fake skeptics proceeded to throw 'their guy' under the bus... suddenly, the previously skeptic BEST lead author was now, persona non grata - go figure!

following up on the recent BEST project results... just published, a new paper showing continued global warming, provides a new analysis of the five available global (land+ocean) temperature time series: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010

Abstract: We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Ni˜no/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Ni˜no/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

[waldo]

per another concurrently running MLW thread, one of the more hypocritical fake skeptic ruse’s is to play up the false economics of the tarsands… typically focused exclusively on the ‘here & now’… usually centered on a somewhat myopic economic blinder aligned with and measured against presumed job creation numbers, direct and indirect. When those jobs run out… or when the resource runs out… or when the markets dry up given a world progressively moving away from fossil-fuels, well…..

clearly, the non-renewable nature of the tarsands resource means little or nothing to those unable to think beyond their own personal livelihood or lifespan. Occasionally, a suspect rationale for narrow minded ‘here & now’ thinking is offered in terms of some unknown… but expected… new replacement alternative source/technology to arrive in the future. Peak Oil is to be scoffed at… even though bitumen extraction is recognized as one of the signatures of Peak Oil. Sustainable energy alternatives are continually derided and berated.

worse yet, if the false skeptic even offers a begrudging nod to accepting ‘some degree’ of mankind’s fossil-fuel burning influence on warming/climate change, it’s usually tempered against a blinding assumption that some unknown… but expected… geo-engineering panacea will arrive in the future. Typically, the false skeptic will simply ignore the science behind fossil-fuel’s CO2 emission influence and won’t care/consider what tarsands extraction means in terms of either increased emissions (as compared to conventional oil), or conceptually in terms of existing and continued development (as compared to conventional oil).

of course, the non-renewable tarsands false economy is clearly so, as it ignores actual direct environmental impacts, damage and cleanup… it ignores lost attention and opportunities toward invested or subsidized renewables… it ignores lost attention and opportunities toward a diversified economy… and, of course, it ignores the enhanced impact of the increased CO2 emissions affect on warming and climate change and all manner of its related costs associated with required adaptation, mitigation and prevention measures.

[waldo]

a bit negligent of late in updating this thread... the following is a typical attempt at a fake skeptics obfuscation in presuming to imply past glacial periods have any relevance to today's relatively recent decades+ warming. It includes a particularly fake skeptic noteworthiness in that it doubles-down by postulating the advantages of increasing/accelerating existing CO2 emission levels!

The pleistocene is marked by increased glaciation periods and our current interglacial peaked out in temperature about 7000 years. Would it not make sense to get the carbon dioxide level up a bit so we ensure that we don't have another ice age? Nothing like covering 50% of the worlds landmass in ice and bringing the climate in Yellowknife to Northern California to create a real ecological disaster.

notwithstanding past glacial/interglacial periods have no bearing on today's relatively recent decades+ accelerated anthropogenic forced warming, is it your premise that increasing current CO2 emissions further, increasing the current acceleration of CO2 emissions further, is a reasonable and rational strategy? That is to say, you would choose to ignore the greenhouse effect, current impacts of rising atmospheric CO2 levels and the next immediate 100 years impacts on further accelerated CO2 levels... in favour of a presumptive CO2influence on the next, oh... say... 10,000+ years away glacial? More pointedly, given extension to today's orbital forcing coupled with the long residence times of even the present levels of atmospheric CO2, just when are you projecting the end of our current interglacial?

[waldo]

a veritable treasure-trove of fake skeptic memorabilia on MLW associates to the posting antics of a few of the usual suspects who, invariably, choose to source their gems from like-minded fake journalists; i.e., British tabloid fake "journalists" ... the likes of David Rose, Johnathan Leake, James Delingpole, Piers Akerman, etc..

one recent foray into the breach had one Shady character pounce on a David Rose masterful piece of unsubstantiated fluff that presumed to claim the British Met Office/University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit temperature data shows no warming since 1997.

this David Rose unsubstantiated tripe, of course, was played for all it's worth across the fake skeptic denialsphere and actually bumped up, here and there, into the mainstream. It didn't get the usual play that past British tabloid "journalist" crapola got in the past... once bit and all that! Even when the British MET Office countering response to David Rose's tripe was highlighted, it didn't dissuade the offending MLW poster... not in the least!

even though the David Rose claim was false, even though he provided no substantiation, this MLW usual suspect, chose to play upon many, many previous MLW posting references that have highlighted the related cherry-picking; specifically:

- choosing to trend from a 97/98 year positions a biased temperature anomaly starting point as that year remains one of the warmest years on record

- choosing to trend on a relatively short-term time frame period; typically, in broader context, climatic trending intervals are viewed as more representative in factoring all influences with 17-20+ year interval periods.

- the CRU Hadcrut3 data has traditionally shown the least warming of all global temperature datasets... this is a known quantity that reflects upon the unique characteristic of Hadcrut data that doesn't include an appropriate distribution across the Arctic/Northern Russia. Accordingly, for years on end, the CRU Hadcrut3 results were the favoured go-to for fake skeptics as the results showed less warming than those from NASA, or NOAA, or JMA, etc. (note: a new revision, Hadcrut4, will shortly be released in early 2012... a revision that will, amongst other changes, bring forward a more comprehensive distribution of global temperature stations, including the Arctic/Northern Russia)

[lukin]

The alarmists are losing steam. Too bad.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

[Michael Hardner]

The alarmists are losing steam. Too bad.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

Link Fixed

Bad link. Also Waldo already responded to this one, so it's not new information to these threads.

[waldo]

Too bad.

thanks - very apropos for this thread! This showcases 2 particular traits of the fake skeptic:

1 - the 'run & gun' drive-by: in discussion forums, as particularly carried out well in MLW CC/AGW related threads, the most flagrant purveyors of fake skepticism will throw down links without offering comment, save an emphatic "ta da". The drive-by is a most convenient mode given the drivers invariably know nothing of the presumed link content being sprayed.

2 - being unable to actually argue the science, fake skeptics will take solace through whatever self-proclaimed "wins" they perceive.

in any case, lukin... your drive-by was too slow:

and... no - it's not the Sun!

The authors of the blog to this following linked article are prominent scientists and proponents of the theory supporting CC/AGW; one of those authors, the author of the article, most certainly has not been hesitant in offering criticism of particular like proponents.

A skeptic lacking skepticism: Fritz Vahrenholt

It seems that Fritz Vahrenholt and his coauthor Sebastian Lüning have simply cherry-picked – what is what they criticize their opponents for.

What we see here is a transformation of an alarmist to a skeptic, who replaces the main message without changing attitudes, methods, claims-making and lack of skepticism against own positions and people, who support the wanted outcome of the analysis. He has not changed in his need to have opponents, or maybe better: enemies. He is a politician, who uses populist methods, and has no idea what science consists of. I consider him and his coauthor as honest people; they really believe what they say, they are seriously and honestly upset about what they see as a conspiracy.

Vahrenholt's demand that alternative explanation systems of the observed climate changes and of expected future changes need to be studied, is entirely legitimate; more resources should go into the scientific inquiry about alternative explanations, but they should be studied with the same scrutiny as the greenhouse-gas based explanation, which has been examined carefully by very many different scientists and disciplines. But to present the solar-explanation system as certain truth, is simply irresponsible. What is needed is skepticism, which should not be used as an excuse of not deciding about policies.

But I was really surprised, and personally disappointed, when Fritz Vahrenholt referred to the reduced harvest of regional wind energy in recent winters as a surprise and an argument against the reality of man-amde climate change. How could he have believed in a steady increase of windiness in Northern Germany in the early decades of the 21st century because of increasing greenhouse gas levels?

[lukin]

thanks - very apropos for this thread! This showcases 2 particular traits of the fake skeptic:

1 - the 'run & gun' drive-by: in discussion forums, as particularly carried out well in MLW CC/AGW related threads, the most flagrant purveyors of fake skepticism will throw down links without offering comment, save an emphatic "ta da". The drive-by is a most convenient mode given the drivers invariably know nothing of the presumed link content being sprayed.

2 - being unable to actually argue the science, fake skeptics will take solace through whatever self-proclaimed "wins" they perceive.

in any case, lukin... your drive-by was too slow:

Waldo, you are very vague and you don't stray to far from generic generalizations. I don't think you know what you think you're supposed to believe.

[waldo]

Waldo, you are very vague and you don't stray to far from generic generalizations. I don't think you know what you think you're supposed to believe.

yup lil' buddy... unlike you, I never go into details!

but, yet again, your post offer another fortuitous opportunity to showcase yet another trait of the fake skeptic - the Dunning-Kruger effect!

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which the unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

keep it coming, lil' buddy!

[Shady]

You know you've got waldo flustered when he turns into the skipper from Gilligan's Island!

yup lil' buddy

keep it coming, lil' buddy!

[waldo]

You know you've got waldo flustered

it's usually a term of endearment held closely... just for you! In any case, I trust the D-K effect reference flew right over your head, hey?

[Shady]

it's usually a term of endearment held closely... just for you! In any case, I trust the D-K effect reference flew right over your head, hey?

I must admit, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in terms of a D-K effect.

[waldo]

I must admit, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in terms of a D-K effect.

reading is quite difficult for you, isn't it. Look up, look a few posts up... there it is!

[Shady]

reading is quite difficult for you, isn't it. Look up, look a few posts up... there it is!

Oh ok, so as usual, it has nothing to do with warming, or data.

[lukin]

reading is quite difficult for you, isn't it. Look up, look a few posts up... there it is!

Waldo, your ship has sailed. Your cut and paste posts make little sense. You have zero credibility.