If you haven't realised by now, one of the things that keeps fake sceptics awake at night is trying to figure out ways to reject the fact that climate science shows that humans are causing global warming.
Yesterday on WUWT one fake sceptic, David Burton, published a long article (archived here) telling us how for the last year and a half, he's been thinking of how to protest the Doran and Zimmerman paper, published almost five years ago.
(Mike H in the comments below provides a bit of background on David Burton, Science Denier Third Class and "Expert Reviewer" of the IPCC AR5 WG1 First Order Draft - trying to inflict Foreign Object Damage.)
|The Stupid it Burns|
He's come up with such a clever way of protesting the results. In a 680 word "guest essay" on WUWT he explains that it's not 75 out of 77 climate scientists, including contrarians, who responded to a survey who agree that: human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature. It's really "only" 75 out of 79 (even though two of those 79 didn't answer the question).
He tells us he's even written to the journal demanding a correction to a non-error in the paper that was published almost five years ago in January 2009! He says this snippet from a longer sentence is wrong: "97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes". David Burton doesn't dispute the fact that 75 answered yes. David Burton doesn't dispute the fact that 77 climate scientists answered the question. What David argues is that Doran and Zimmerman should have added to the 77 two responses that didn't exist.
547.5 days and nights sweating over a five year old paper
All I can say is "Wow!" Just think. It only took David Burton 547.5 days and nights of fretting about this five year old paper before finally having such a number-fudging brainwave! (I wonder how long it will take him to compute that the earth isn't flat?)
Doran, P. T., and M. K. Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3), 22–23, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
From the WUWT comments
December 10, 2013 at 10:11 ampappad doesn't realise that most incoming radiation is short wave not long wave.
Anybody care to explain to me how CO2 can allow IR to REACH the surface but somehow “traps” it there and won’t allow it to reflect back into space??? Is it one-way reflective?
Box of Rocks follows up pappad's question with another and says (extract):
December 10, 2013 at 11:41 am
I would go a step further and ask the question -
Isn’t the altitude of the CO2 molecule important also since the earth’s surface is round and curves away from the emitted radiation?Curves away from the emitted radiation? I've no (publishable) answer to that one!!
December 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm
95% of those who call themselves climate scientists are actually marxist propagandists.
December 10, 2013 at 4:01 pm
I’d originally thought the D&Z paper to appear at least ‘plausible’ in the minds of the authors, notwithstanding the fatal flaws and inherent bias that they might fail to see in their selection methodology. But now we can see from David’s revealing the full report that it was actually nothing but fraudulent.
Chuck Nolan says - where's the C in AGW? (extract):
December 10, 2013 at 6:22 pm
This is the part I have trouble with.
Where’s the catastrophe questions?
People won’t fear AGW if there is no “C” in front of it.