AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[waldo]

a few recent MLW posts/status updates are perfect examples to further examine the denier mindset. The following first example showcases a MLW poster who has shown a long history of cut&paste throw-downs of denier sourced articles coupled with absolutely no ability to provide a personal interpretation and/or argue the presumed merits of the article (or related study/research therein). This now somewhat dated 3-year old example also highlights the sigificant role denier advocates play in trumpeting the study with an ultimate gain towards reaching mainstream publications. Further below, a reference is provided to a Media Matters article that provides a summary accounting of the denier spin-cycle and how conservative media responded publishing into the mainstream:

example 1:

Long wave radiation sends energy that is not absorbed into space, and recent findings blew gaping holes in climate change models that didn't understand this part of the earth's "energy budget".

From NASA of course....not any Canadian sources !

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

per the above quotes, the attempted ruse starts with multiple references to NASA... following the lead-in, "recent findings blew gaping holes....". Of course, that lead-in is simply one written by the Heartland Institute's "in-house" lawyer, James Taylor. Several past MLW posts have showcased this same pattern of deception/lies/deceipt from this same James Taylor. The study in question was well discussed in it's own MLW thread - here: highlighting, yet again, the failed science of creationist Roy Spencer... he of the most simplistic '1-box' model used to draw radical summations and flawed findings of the most complex climate system.

as I said above, Media Matters covered this example quite well... of particular note are the quotes from CrazyAunt Judy (Judith Curry, the darling of fake-skeptics). Wow! Just how bad does this Spencer paper have to be to get Judy, Judy, Judy to actually come down on it herself - big time!

Skeptical Science covered this failed Spencer example from the perspective of the debunking paper written by Andrew Dessler........ where Dessler takes on both Spencer (and co-author Braswell) as well as another failed paper written by Lindzen/Choi... also a paper that's been covered in prior MLW posts.


in any case, back to this thread's denier mindset: in this case example the trumpeted source "from NASA"... wasn't; the sources were a Heartland Institute "lawyer" presuming to hype a failed/flawed Roy Spencer study. Per the typical denier norm, there was no consideration to validate sources and claims. More pointedly, again per denier norm, there was no attempt to present a personal interpretation of the event/claim... one that could be further discussed (and possibly countered) by other MLW members... it was simply, yet again, another "ta da" cut&paste post that is simply dropped and never returned to. Call it, "denier run & gun"!
.

[bush_cheney2004]

Poor alarmists...they are certainly hard done by with broken climate change models, lack of warming, and the big time Kyoto FAIL (e.g. Canada).

The years are clicking by and nothing is being done to stop our pending doom.

Better go find some more "denier nation" data from NASA or NOAA for us to ignore !

[WWWTT]

Ya that whole alarmist/global warming fad seems to be fading as the years go by.

There seems to be a few things going on that are depleting the ranks in my opinion.

First off, the lack of Earths destruction!

Secondly, when is the climate going to change? I guess setting dates was not a real good idea on the part of the "global warming scientists".

The shift to green energy seems to be calming down a lot of the global warming followers, in particular Europe. Like breathing into a paper bag.

WWWTT

[waldo]

the perfect post to exemplify the mindset! It hits many of the key denier talking points while also highlighting personal touches that are only mentioned in an attempt to flame and solicit response... what's the word for that again? Of course, as shown many times over, overall climate change model temperature predictions/projections have been shown to have done quite well... and there most certainly is no lack of warming. Of course, the denier pet project is to regularly trot out the "Canada Kyoto FAIL" line... one that was initially targeted solely at the Liberal Party of Canada... until, of course, the waldo shredded that BS claim while showcasing everything the Liberal Party did, attempted to do and had designs on doing vis a vis Canada's Kyoto commitment. Of course, as the waldo detailed in depth, the real fail stems from Harper Conservatives actions. In any case, every time this Canada Kyoto Fail line comes forward... purposely comes forward intending to inflame... the perfect retort is to highlight the real Kyoto FAIL... that of the U.S., where the U.S. signed the treaty, and had the treaty crafted to suit U.S. wants/designs, had the community of nations respond and comply to the U.S. influenced treaty, and had the community of nations accept commitments based upon U.S. promises and expressed intentions... only to have the U.S. turn it's back on the treaty and refuse to ratify it. That is the U.S. Kyoto FAIL!

Poor alarmists...they are certainly hard done by with broken climate change models, lack of warming, and the big time Kyoto FAIL (e.g. Canada).

The years are clicking by and nothing is being done to stop our pending doom.

Better go find some more "denier nation" data from NASA or NOAA for us to ignore !

[waldo]

Ya that whole alarmist/global warming fad seems to be fading as the years go by.

There seems to be a few things going on that are depleting the ranks in my opinion.

First off, the lack of Earths destruction!

Secondly, when is the climate going to change? I guess setting dates was not a real good idea on the part of the "global warming scientists".

The shift to green energy seems to be calming down a lot of the global warming followers, in particular Europe. Like breathing into a paper bag.

WWWTT

per your self-acknowledged 'loud and proud' denier expressions of GW/AGW "sham, fad, scam"... your strawman attempts do not take the place of substantive credible points for discussion

[Keepitsimple]

Science is always moved forward by theories, testing and observation. Observation is clearly supporting the dominance of natural forces over man-made "fossil fuel" Armageddon. CO2 rising - no warming........same as from 1940 to the 70's. The politics of the situation are clear enough as well. If there were no socialist agenda in place, the tenor of discussion would be one of optimism - if not relief.....that initial predictions of doom and gloom clearly have been overstated and while it makes sense to make a responsible but pragmatic move to clean energy, there is no imminent tipping point and the world is safe "for our children". But no, the drum beat of Armageddon continues - because it's not about Global Warming - it's about social engineering and the shift of power to an unelected cadre of powerful influences masquerading behind the UN.

[Wilber]

Could someome please tell me why the rate of sea level rise has doubled in the past 20 years if the earth isn't warming?

[TimG]

Could someome please tell me why the rate of sea level rise has doubled in the past 20 years if the earth isn't warming?

In the last 20 years they switched to satellite measurements and it is always deceptive to compare datasets collected with very different measurement apparatus:

This graph shows the different in context with previous rises:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#mediaviewer/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

The rate may be higher than in the 70s but it is less that the rise from 30s to 50s. Whatever is happening with the sea level has a large natural component which means SLR data does not negate actual temperature data that shows no warming.

I realize alarmists want to argue that the heat is going 'into the oceans' but the amount of heat energy actually measured in the oceans is not enough to explain away the heat energy missing at the surface. This points to a likely problem with the computer models used to calculate such things.

Also the problem with the 'its in oceans' argument is it makes almost impossible to attribute the recent rises entirely to CO2 since the ocean can apparently absorb AND release heat at random intervals. If oceans are doing this then no one can say how much of the rise from 1980-2000 was due to previously stored heat being released. This means prior claims that the rise 'cannot be explained without CO2' are no longer true - the can be explained by heat being released from the oceans.

Edited September 6, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

Also the problem with the 'its in oceans' argument is it makes almost impossible to attribute the recent rises entirely to CO2 since the ocean can apparently absorb AND release heat at random intervals. If oceans are doing this then no one can say how much of the rise from 1980-2000 was due to previously stored heat being released. This means prior claims that the rise 'cannot be explained without CO2' are no longer true - the can be explained by heat being released from the oceans.

You have it backwards. If the levels are rising, the oceans are absorbing heat. Where is that heat coming from?

[TimG]

If the levels are rising, the oceans are absorbing heat. Where is that heat coming from?

Obviously the sun/atmosphere but that does not make the point you wish to make as I explained above. There are two problems which the pause creates for alarmists:

1) The pause shows that climate computer models have limited predictive power.

2) The fact that the oceans may randomly emit/absorb large amounts of energy completely undermines the claim that there are 'no natural explanations for the rise from 1980'. If the ocean can suddenly start absorbing more heat it can also suddenly start emitting it.

Edited September 6, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Obviously the sun/atmosphere but that does not make the point you wish to make as I explained above. There are two problems which the pause creates for alarmists:

1) The pause shows that climate computer models have limited predictive power.

2) The fact that the oceans may randomly emit/absorb large amounts of energy completely undermines the claim that there are 'no natural explanations for the rise from 1980'. If the ocean can suddenly start absorbing more heat it can also suddenly start emitting it.

They are emitting it. That's what's melting the polar ice caps.

[Wilber]

Obviously the sun/atmosphere but that does not make the point you wish to make as I explained above. There are two problems which the pause creates for alarmists:1) The pause shows that climate computer models have limited predictive power.2) The fact that the oceans may randomly emit/absorb large amounts of energy completely undermines the claim that there are 'no natural explanations for the rise from 1980'. If the ocean can suddenly start absorbing more heat it can also suddenly start emitting it.

You guys tell me there has been no atmospheric warming in 17 years yet all the evidence we have says sea levels are rising at an increasing rate. The two primary reasons for sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans themselves and glacial melting, both of which require heat. So where is the heat coming from?

[bush_cheney2004]

Where did the heat come from 20,000 years ago ?

[Keepitsimple]

You guys tell me there has been no atmospheric warming in 17 years yet all the evidence we have says sea levels are rising at an increasing rate. The two primary reasons for sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans themselves and glacial melting, both of which require heat. So where is the heat coming from?

Just like land based temperatures are questionable for a variety of reasons - and ocean temperatures are in their relative infancy with the only accurate information coming from the Argo deployment - sea level rise is also a complex affair that is not yet fully understood. Just another example of the silliness behind "the debate is over"! Here's an article from 2010 that is still current in its conclusions.....but here in North America, keep your eyes on the Florida keys. Most of the Keys do not exceed 4 feet above sea level. They've been deluged by hurricanes going back hundreds of years but if sea levels are rapidly rising, the Keys will be North America's "canary in the coal mine". NOt much happening over the past couple of decades.....

In a nutshell, as the global temperatures rise and warm the waters, the northern current that heads toward the chilly North Atlantic might slow down and initiate a literal ripple effect to the south, exacerbating the sea level rise along the eastern U.S. coastline.

“Ocean circulation is projected to cause 20 centimeters (7.8 inches) extra sea level rise on top of the global mean sea level rise along the northeastern U.S. coast during this century,” Yin said.

But that only accounts for one small land area. The full measure of sea level rise depends on a host of factors in addition to changing ocean currents and land ice melt. Prevailing winds on the oceans, thermal expansion of warmer waters and melting glaciers also play roles.

For that reason, scientists are modeling those different aspects of sea level rise to piece together the entire picture.

“The effect of ocean currents and prevailing winds on seal level is realistically represented in models,” Yin said. “However, models are still unable to predict the land ice contribution to sea level rise through the dynamical process. This results in a wide range of future sea level rise predictions.”

Horton at the University of Pennsylvania emphasizes that people should take global sea level rise estimates with a grain of salt at this point.

“Sea level rise isn’t simple,” Horton said. “It’s region-specific; it’s spatially variable; it’s land-specific and ocean-specific.”

Link: http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/are-the-oceans-rising.htm

Edited September 7, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

I suspect a lot of the heat may be coming from the friction caused by the deniers trying to convince the rest of us the science is wrong.

[Wilber]

I suspect a lot of the heat may be coming from the friction caused by the deniers trying to convince the rest of us the science is wrong.

The fact they won't even ask or aknowledge the question says everything.

[eyeball]

Where did the heat come from 20,000 years ago ?

A natural process that was slower than at present, a lot slower I reckon.

[waldo]

Science is always moved forward by theories, testing and observation. Observation is clearly supporting the dominance of natural forces over man-made "fossil fuel" Armageddon. CO2 rising - no warming........same as from 1940 to the 70's. The politics of the situation are clear enough as well. If there were no socialist agenda in place, the tenor of discussion would be one of optimism - if not relief.....that initial predictions of doom and gloom clearly have been overstated and while it makes sense to make a responsible but pragmatic move to clean energy, there is no imminent tipping point and the world is safe "for our children". But no, the drum beat of Armageddon continues - because it's not about Global Warming - it's about social engineering and the shift of power to an unelected cadre of powerful influences masquerading behind the UN.

a veritable treasure-trove of fake-skepic/denier-speak; one that includes a heavy dose of repetitive unsubstantiated claims! Well done Simple... the thread owes you a big thankee. Of course, a principal foundation of denial has been to continually offer an unsubstantiated claim that natural variability prevails... as the cause of warming. That takes on a new wrinkle/flavour when the reduced rate of surface temperature warming turns into the now favoured denier go-to... the so-called "global pause"... the global pause which isn't, of course. While legitimate scientists explore avenues to determine the cause(s) of a reduced rate of surface temperature rise... as in what degree natural variability may be contributing to the greater shift of warming into ocean layers, deniers favour an unsubstantiated story-line that "natural forces" start... and stop... with/at surface temperature only. That in spite of the close coupling that whole ocean heat content rising thingee... why that's just some convenient "alarmist ruse", hey Simple?

of course, there's always the repetitive angle... say it enough times and... Simple, you truly are the MLW poster-boy for repeating the/your same tired canards that have been previously dealt with. You've played up an assortment of past 30s-on through to-70s decadal range claims while never providing any support/substantiation for those claims. Your 40s-to-70s claim has been dealt with several times over... yet you keep coming back with it; again, unsubstantiated. By the by... as stated previously, the prevailing consensus on that period of time (notwithstanding the significantly different rates of rising CO2), attributes the (reduced) rate of warming associated with increased industrialization to related cooling associated with the increased rate of atmospheric aerosols. And then... along came the U.S. and European "clean air acts" to deal with all that pollution and aerosol creation - go figure... warming started to significantly increase. Coincidentally, scientists are actively exploring the impact China/India industrialization related aerosol creation may be contributing to the reduced rate of global surface temperature warming. Is that..... natural, Simple?

and, of course, what would any fake-skeptic/denier summary accounting be without an acknowledgement to those scientists social engineers taking marching orders from their world governing UN overlords! Well done, Simple... well done!

[waldo]

I realize alarmists want to argue that the heat is going 'into the oceans' but the amount of heat energy actually measured in the oceans is not enough to explain away the heat energy missing at the surface. This points to a likely problem with the computer models used to calculate such things.

Also the problem with the 'its in oceans' argument is it makes almost impossible to attribute the recent rises entirely to CO2 since the ocean can apparently absorb AND release heat at random intervals. If oceans are doing this then no one can say how much of the rise from 1980-2000 was due to previously stored heat being released. This means prior claims that the rise 'cannot be explained without CO2' are no longer true - the can be explained by heat being released from the oceans.

as I emphasized in the thread OP (and a few times subsequent), the intent of this thread wasn't to get mired into the depths of attempting to discuss/debate unsubstantiated fake-skeptic/denier claims. As I said, there's a brazillion other MLW threads that have done... that are doing... just that. In that vein I would encourage you to extend upon the above quote and carry real substantive and substantiated discussion/claim forward in another thread. I am particularly keen to see you respond in regards your claim of "ocean heat release being... random... which I'm interpreting as you implying without cause/attribution". Thanks in advance.

[waldo]

Just like land based temperatures are questionable for a variety of reasons...

keep it coming Simple, keep it coming. This was, of course, your long favoured point of fake-skeptic/denier attack... to claim the surface temperature record was flawed/suspect. For thread after thread it was you... and your guy (Tony Willard Watts)... along with an assortment of other TV weathermen you called upon! Given the thrashing you took over this... given the multiple failed challenges put forward against the assortment of independent surface temperature record datasets... given that no reputable legitimate skeptic even bothers to question the surface temperature record anymore, Simple... why do you persist with this nonsense?

[On Guard for Thee]

And it look's like the news isn't getting any better.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/carbon-dioxide-emissions-greenhouse-gases

[-1=e^ipi]

And it look's like the news isn't getting any better.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/09/carbon-dioxide-emissions-greenhouse-gases

'record high'? Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher for the vast majority of the past 600 million years. The guardian article has many factual errors.

[Wilber]

'record high'? Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher for the vast majority of the past 600 million years. The guardian article has many factual errors.

It's not about the level, it's about the accelerating rate of change. Also the large increase in other greenhouse gasses such as methane and NOX.

[On Guard for Thee]

'record high'? Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher for the vast majority of the past 600 million years. The guardian article has many factual errors.

Well the Guardian is just reporting what the WMO has published. You can go direct to them and see the report for yourself. BTW where do you get your info, Marc Morano ansd Climate Depot per chance?

[waldo]

a most fitting point for this thread... 600 million years ago! Ah yes, the long, long, long ago distant past mentioned many times over by fake-skeptics/deniers in attempts to diminish cause/concern for the relatively recent rate of warming/climate change impacts. When going back 400,000 years just won't cut it... go way, way, way back!!!