I started to write an article about the GWPF's latest denier pitch but I see that And Then There's Physics has already written about it, and done a better job than I could. I'll add my two bob's worth anyway.
Andrew Montford, who's a brit who runs a science denying blog, together with the science denial lobby group, the GWPF, is claiming "fraud". Anthony Watts decided to promote it (archived here).
So what's new about that? Deniers shriek "fraud" at every opportunity. You're right. There's nothing new about that. It's an example of the techniques used by the people who are in the business of disinformation propaganda about climate. Write a paper about blog articles by conspiracy theorising deniers somewhere on the internet, claiming "climate science is a hoax", which is meant to prove that climate science is a hoax.
I mean if a climate science denier somewhere on the internet says "climate science is a scam", then 200 years of physics, chemistry, geology and biology must be a scam, right?
Actually, Andrew Montford seems to be arguing that climate science is a hoax because fake sceptics agree that the increase in CO2 is causing global warming. Or something like that. Which is pretty weird.
He's also claiming that Richard Tol hasn't been able to get some non-existent time stamps therefore 97% of climate science papers don't agree that increased CO2 causes global warming. Or something like that. Except that Richard Tol agrees that the preponderance of scientific papers show that human activity is what is causing global warming. And this is the same Richard Tol about whose own research Bob Ward wrote last May, when getting him to correct errors in his work:
The response of the journals has been very variable and has revealed a surprising lack of commitment to basic transparency. A number of the data points in the papers were derived by Professor Tol aggregating the results of other studies. Despite numerous requests, Professor Tol has so far failed to make available the details of these aggregations so that I might check them for further errors. The journals have also failed to make the calculations available..
What's that? Richard Tol isn't making available details needed to check his work for errors? That's quite different to Cook and co, who've made every bit of information available that would be needed to check their work for errors.
It's impossible for deniers to come up with any evidence that refutes the consensus that humans are causing global warming. It doesn't exist. Maybe that's why Andrew Montford fell back on denier bloggers and other miscellany. This is the muddled argument that Andrew Montford uses to claim that the Cook paper is suspect:
- Most fake sceptics and contrarians agree that human activity is causing an increase in CO2 which is causing global warming
- President Obama tweeted about the Cook study
- Ed Davey referred to the Cook study
- Richard Tol couldn't get non-existent time stamps irrelevant to the study
- Christopher Monckton weirdly figures that (3896 ÷ 4014)*100 doesn't equal 97%
- An utter nutter nonentity of a Libertarian blogger cried "fraud"
The Global Warming Policy Foundation saw fit to "publish" this bit of idiocy. They really are hard up aren't they.