No censoring of ice age cometh articles at WUWT

Within hours of Anthony Watts talking about legitimacy, openness and honesty on his blog, he posted an utter rubbish "ice age cometh" article from Stanmore Coal director Viv Forbes (archived here). No openness about Viv's coal connections. Anthony might need more time to "research and write", however by promoting Viv's article he demonstrates that research and writing count for little at WUWT.

Viv claims "it's the sun", though he acknowledges there are also Milankovitch cycles. After dismissing decades of rapid warming as "weather ripples and waves", he wrote:

In the medium term, Earth temperature trends are influenced by variations in solar activities as evidenced by sun-spot cycles. These variations affect solar intensity, cosmic rays, clouds and Earth temperature, causing medium-term climatic events like the Little Ice Age and the Modern Warming. There are persuasive signs that recent solar activity has peaked. So we can expect cooler weather soon.

Curiously, immediately after that paragraph, there was a garish picture showing how the current waning solar cycle was considerable less strong than the previous one, which was also less strong than the one before it, yet global mean surface temperature is at record high levels.

Back to normal at WUWT: Dog whistles and big announcements

After a short interlude of tedious boring, WUWT is back to normal. I last wrote about Anthony Watts and his blog: "Is this a lull before his next "big announcement" or dogwhistle to his lynch mob?" Turns out it was both.

WUWT wants your best paranoid conspiracy theory about the IPCC

WUWT has had three articles in the past 24 hours, protesting the latest reports from the IPCC. These IPCC reports are not new material. What they are is a Synthesis Report, combining the reports of the three working groups. And a Summary for Policymakers of that Synthesis Report.

You can download the reports from the IPCC website.

As well as a summary from the media reports (archived here), Anthony Watts has got utter nutters from the piddly and incestuous "climate science coalitions". He has a "press release" quoting Tom Harris (who gets his climate science from the Bible) and Bob Carter (who warns about an ice age comething) apparently claiming that the IPCC reports are "unscientific and immoral" (archived here).  Is that the best they can do? Seriously? I can't imagine the "press release" will be used anywhere except denier blogs that only pander to deniers and don't care how weird they look to the rest of the world.

Anthony Watts has also got "Bob Tisdale" calling for WUWT readers to post their best conspiracy theory about the IPCC (archived here).

About the IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). This was when conservative parties were in government. Ronald Reagan was US President and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the UK. Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister of Australia, but I doubt he would have had much say in this matter compared to the United States and Britain.

The IPCC itself employs only a very small staff. It's reports are prepared through a collaboration of thousands of scientists throughout the world, who volunteer their time to do so. Mostly this is unpaid out-of-hours work, because most of them would have to continue in their main job at the same time. The authors of the IPCC reports are experts in their respective fields. They review the latest scientific research and report on it. They judge the relevance, importance and accuracy of the research that has been published in scientific journals. There are also authors who write about policies, technology and actions taken to adapt to and mitigate global warming. This is based on information from a variety of sources, including industry peak bodies, government agencies and other reputable sources from around the world. Everything in the IPCC reports is heavily referenced so readers can verify the information.

IPCC reports are arguably the most comprehensive reports of any produced in the world today - by a long way. And the most scrutinised.

The IPCC has a well-defined structure. It also has a small secretariat to assist in coordinating its activities.  It is subject to the members of the UN and WMO, which span the spectrum of government structures, ideologies and political persuasions. The WMO currently has 185 member states and 6 territories. The UN currently has 193 member states. If the majority of governments wanted to do so, they could disband the IPCC. They don't.

What deniers think the IPCC is...

WUWT does odd things from time to time as if it wants to show how nutty its readers are. You may recall the "Denialism Saved Me" thread from last year, which was featured at HotWhopper here and here and here.

Science denier Bob Carter comes out as an ice age comether

Bob Carter, one of Australia's own climate science deniers, has written a letter to The Australian (h/t MB). Extract follows:

Heading for ice age

...we have a report by Sue Neales that the size of our grain harvest remains in doubt following severe frosts in southern NSW killing large areas of early wheat crops and also damaging wheat and canola crops in South Australia and Victoria (“Trifecta of calamities to deplete. crop harvest”, 12/9)

See below for more on the frost damage.

Is it unreasonable to be surprised that none of your writers, much less the government, has noticed that leading solar astrophysicists, such as Habibullo Abdussamatov from Pulkovo Observatory in St Petersburg, have for years been commenting on the declining activity of the sun?

Not true. In May last year Graham Lloyd wrote about the ice age comether, Habibullo Abdussamatov, with derision from anyone who read it. Graham Readfearn tells all.

These scientists are projecting a significant cooling over the next three decades, and perhaps even the occurrence of another little ice age.

Bob only mentions one "solar astrophysicist". Who are the others? Where are they hiding? Why can't Bob name any? Maybe because reputable solar researchers know that a dip in solar activity won't herald an ice age, little or big.

Obsessed as they are with a gentle global warming trend that stopped late last century, should the expected solar cooling eventuate, policy makers will rue the day they failed to heed the advice of independent scientists on climate change issues.

Bob Carter, Townsville, Qld

Habibullo Abdussamatov is a government scientist who heads up a space research division in Russia. It seems he favours lesser scientific "journals". Bob Carter used to be a researcher at a university, paid by government funding. He's paid a stipend by the Heartland Institute and is affiliated with a number of climate science denying groups. He's not an independent scientist.

Neither of them are climate scientists.

Both of them are "ice age comethers".

Both of them are in a tiny minority of scientists who deny climate science and not on any scientific grounds. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists know that humans are causing global warming. Whose advice should policy makers take?

Frost damage to winter crops in part because of the mild winter!

This is from an article by Lisa Castleman, Riverina Local Land Services (NSW Government)

...The occurrence of ‘Stem Frost’ in cereal crops such as wheat, barley, oats and triticale or pulse crops such as lupins, field peas and faba beans is rare but not impossible. Stem Frost can occur when a severe frost (less than -2°C) occurs shortly after a rainfall event and water has settled inside the boot only to be frozen by the frost which then damages the sensitive stem tissue in close proximity....  

...Frosts in winter are not unusual but an early sowing window this season and milder temperatures through winter has meant that many crops have developed quickly, making them more vulnerable to severe frost events. “Advanced crops with a run of severe frosts coinciding immediately after rainfall events is a combination that we rarely experience” said Ms Castleman who is based in Wagga Wagga.  

So the reason the winter frosts wrought such devastation is because the milder temperatures in winter (consistent with global warming, you'll note) meant that the crops were more developed when the frosts hit. The rain made the damage worse.

Bob Carter is not only not a climate scientist, he's not an agricultural scientist either.

The Pseudo-Science Coalition, Bible Science and Conspiracy Theories

Is it because of the Christian holiday - Easter time, that's brought out all the religious beliefs at WUWT?

Today there's an article (archived here) about how all the science according to the IPCC is wrong, but science according to the Old Testament is right.  The article is by a Tom Harris who is from the International Climate Science Coalition.  That's an organisation related to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.  It's chief science adviser is Bob Carter.  Bob's a retired scientist who has taken up climate science denial to supplement his superannuation.  He's paid by the Heartland Institute and is also prominent at the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian right wing lobby group.

The International Climate Science Coalition is a misnomer. It should be called the Climate Anti-Science Coalition. Or maybe the Climate Pseudo-Science Coalition.  I'll run with the latter.

Tom's the Executive Director and manages the show, according to DeSmogBlog. He's an engineer by training, not a climate scientist. He studied thermofluids.  That's outside my area of expertise, just like climate science is clearly outside Tom's area of expertise.

Tom and his pseudo-science organisation is pretty cosy with the Heartland Institute, which is probably why he's trying to promote their latest "not the IPCC" report.  After reading the executive summary of the last one I'm not sure that it's worth anyone's time reading the latest one.  I notice that while they tried to match the first two IPCC reports they didn't bother with matching WGIII.  That's probably because they don't want to mitigate global warming. The Heartland Institute advocate adaptation as the sole strategy.  Fortunately for them no-one's paying them any attention.  Their last big launch attracted the following people, according to skepticalscience.com:

• 5 Heartland participants
• 5 grumpy-looking old white guys 
• 1 supporter from the American Enterprise Institute
• 2 bored looking middle-aged guys playing with electronic devices
• 1 journalist from CNS news ("The right news. Right now")
• 1 guy running the Fox TV camera 
• 2 women who came in late
• An SkS author and co-conspirator.

Bible science not climate science

Tom from his pseudo-science coalition gets his predictions from the bible but disdains projections from scientists. His article thrice refers to Moses.  (Is that becoming the fashion?) At one point he wrote:

While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true. 

Charlton Heston as Moses

I don't know what he's referring to by "climate Armageddon" or what he thinks should have happened by now.  Maybe he's impatient.  Perhaps he's also got his years wrong and thinks it's 2100 already. That's a common error made by science deniers.  They reckon that because it's not yet two degrees hotter it's never going to be two degrees hotter.  And because seas haven't risen by two metres they are never going to rise by two metres.  I call that dumb. Others might call it stupid or ignorant. Still others might call it deceitful. It depends who is making the claim. When it's the Heartland Institute or the International Pseudo-Science Coalition then it's fair enough to call it deceitful. They know better.

What mistakes, Tom?

Tom's article is littered with claims like "mistakes in the science" and is high on insinuation and low on evidence.  Actually it's not simply low on evidence it has no evidence.  It's all rhetoric.  He includes some twisted quotations from leading figures implying that they don't accept the science.  That's incorrect but it probably goes down well with WUWT readers.  He does bring up the "CO2 is Plant Food" meme, which has dropped to number 42 on the SkepticalScience list of denier arguments.

Need to develop alternative sources of energy

Tom is of the view that we face a long-term energy crisis and writes:

Irrespective of the validity of climate change theories, there are good reasons to develop alternative sources of energy, but climate concerns is certainly not one of them.

The sentence is a bit mixed up.  He should have topped or tailed it.  It also provokes some discussion in the comments.

Just another WUWT conspiracy theorist

Toward the end Tom wrote:

In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science. 

So it turns out Tom's just another conspiracy theorist.  Conspiracy theorists are common at WUWT.  (Given the large number of conspiracy theories Anthony Watts promotes, you'd think he'd support papers like the moon-landing paper. But for some strange reason that and it's successor, Recursive Fury, didn't go down to well at WUWT.)

What wolves?

Tom's final paragraph is curious.  He wrote:

Scientists and others who knew this but promoted the deception for what they considered good reasons will be disgraced. Then no one will believe them when wolves really are at our doors.

What are the wolves?

From the WUWT comments

Given the religious nature of the holiday weekend, there were quite a few religious comments:

Martin 457 knows it was hotter 6,500 years ago because of the garden of eden. And then it got cooler when it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  He says:

April 19, 2014 at 5:27 am
The bible, in it’s old testament, 6500 years ago, there was a garden of eden. We can look back to that time and see that the climate was warmer then. Then, there was a drastic cooling period. Doesn’t surprise me at all it rained for 40 day’s and nights. The atmosphere cooling like that can’t hold that amount of moisture any longer. DUH! Why that happened, un-explained.
The “not-see’s” are driving their cult away by sheer ignorance. Let them.

Louis says:

April 18, 2014 at 7:24 pm
There’s a big difference between “evidence” and “proof.” Both the Bible and the Koran document the Ten Plagues. Such ancient documents don’t “prove” an event happened, but they do provide historical evidence for it. (The fact that the Passover is still being commemorated after more than 3000 years is also evidence.) People can be open to such evidence, or they can close their minds to it. But they ought to have honest reasons for doing so, not just naked bias against the Bible or against religion in general. 

David L. Hagen reckons Moses did alright with his prophecies and points to a book to prove it and says:

April 18, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Moses had an amazing sequence of prophecies that were fulfilled.
See God’s Track Record of Fulfilled Prophecy By Don W. Olson 2005 pp 9-12

If you follow his link you'll see strong evidence, like how the prophecy that the Israelites would leave Egypt with wealth was fulfilled by them getting backpay.  And how the prophecy that the Nile would turn to blood was fulfilled by the Nile and all the rivers in Egypt turning to blood. Heavy, man!


David M says:

April 18, 2014 at 7:54 pm
While I don’t doubt the serious amount of alarmist nonsense spouted about AGW, i’m sorry, but you lost me as soon as you suggested that Moses made predictions that were more accurate. There are so many things wrong with that I don’t even know where to begin, and only serves to diminish your credibility.. 

Felix is like David M and says:

April 18, 2014 at 6:56 pm
“While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true.”

I’m always a little skeptical of people who accept biblical literalism and reject modern science. But, you all believe as you like. 

SAMURAI goes for (mixed up) ancient greek philosophy, invoking Plato's disciple Socrates (sic) and says (excerpt):

April 18, 2014 at 11:41 pm
An excellent post, Tom. Thank you!

Even as Plato’s disciple Socrates sipped his hemlock, he realized that Plato’s “Philosopher King” Utopia was a failed Utopian dream, and that democracies are ultimately and inextricably ruled by kleptocrats who form kleptocratic regimes designed to enslave and rob its citizens.

MarkW reckons there's a lot more fossil fuel in the ground waiting to be discovered and says:

April 18, 2014 at 9:55 pm
While it is true that we will some day begin to run out of fossil fuels, that day is at least several hundred years in the future.

Planning for it now is a complete waste of time as the technology and societal needs of that far distant future are completely unknowable, and any plans made now stand as much chance of making things worse than of making things better.

Pat Frank worships money, not the bible or moses or greek philosophers and says:

April 18, 2014 at 7:23 pm
I’d like to know how much the COP conferences cost. There have been, what, 19 of them so far? Who’s paying for those? How much has been spent on the salaries and expenses of the participants? Who’s paying for them?

How much has already been spent on mitigation of a non-problem? How much for pointless “carbon-capture” projects? How much has been squandered on the IPCC? How much paid for climate scientists to meet several times a year?

How much money has gone to subsidies for solar and wind farms that merely parasitize the productive economy? How much in tax money has gone to subsidize the Teslas that are just toys for rich people?

Someone should total up how much money has been squandered on the idiocy of anthropogenic global warming. 

While Janice Moore (unpredictably) has more faith in human ingenuity, even more than god this time, and says:

April 18, 2014 at 4:01 pm
The comparison with Moses while not exactly on point (ahem)… is an apt one: just as the Egyptians wanted to retain the economic benefits of the slave labor of the Jews,
so, too,
the Enviroprofiteers (and their henchpersons, the Envirostalinists) want to gain (or retain) the economic benefits (for the elite) of any socialist system that has ever blossomed into full flower — the bulk of the citizens become serfs.

“Equality for the world” and “save civilization as we know it” are mere euphemisms for a harsh, bitter, existence for the many to benefit the few.
(to quote with an edit Winston Churchill — from memory, only)
“Capitalism: the unequal sharing of blessings.
Socialism: the equal {except for the elite} sharing of misery.”
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
You make many good points, Mr. Harris, this, however is not one of them:
“… we do indeed face a long-term energy crisis… .”

Unless you are a prophet (like Moses really was), you do not know this. Moreover, historical evidence tells us that such doomsaying conjecture is highly likely to be wrong. You are forgetting, dear sir, that human ingenuity lives! Malthus predicted famine…. there was going to be a big copper wire shortage…. and robots were going to take away all the jobs……and on and on.

I will not believe, Mr. Harris! No, I will not believe your prophecy, for I have far too much FAITH IN OUR WONDERFUL ENGINEERS AND CHEMISTS (have you even looked at what nanotechnology is doing, esp. re: synthetic petroleum products?) to believe for one second that our fuel needs will not be met …. or redefined. 

And not one government regulation is necessary. Free markets will do it all.

So, take heart!
On Good Friday, things looked pretty bleak for a bunch of Jewish followers of a certain Jewish rabbi 2,000 years ago… GOOD THINGS LIE AHEAD!
REJOICE!
#(:)) 

Luverly! Judith Curry supports "the GWPF objectives"

Oh, this is just luverly!  Judith Curry today:

In the midst of all this noise I wasn’t sure what GWPF was all about.  Now I have a better idea, and I certainly support their objectives.

Weirdly, Judith implies that she did no investigation before effectively endorsing the GWPF by writing a foreword to a report of theirs.

Nigel Lawson offers a sample of "what the GWPF" is all about, which I expect would delight Judith Curry, knowing her views on the IPCC.  And I wonder would Judith agree with GWPF Director Benny Peiser who seemed to be suggesting that we might be heading for an ice age?

Do you reckon she's angling for a job on the GWPF's Academic Advisory Council with science deniers: Bob Carter and William Happer and Richard Lindzen and Ross McKitrick and Ian Plimer and Matt Ridley and Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark and David Whitehouse and others?

What's next? An endorsement of James Delingpole, interpreter of interpretations?

(It's more likely she's angling for a job with the GWPF's US cousin, the Heartland Institute.)

Taxpayer-funded fake sceptics - public confession time

Seems that not only will Australian taxpayers be forking out for adaptation and recuperation instead of mitigation, now we're paying science deniers.  The Institute for Public Affairs - arguably Australia's number one climate science denial machine, gets subsidised by taxpayers in all sorts of ways.

It's used the taxpayer-funded ABC as its own personal free publisher and public relations organisation.  It gets a free pass on paying taxes.  And anyone who sends it money gets a tax deduction for doing so.

This, mind you, is a right wing lobby group that rants and raves about government overspending, government subsidies and urges small government.  You'd think the last thing it would be doing is wasting our hard earned tax dollars.  But no.  Apparently it's a matter of "do what we say not what we do".  They survive with the help of taxpayer's contributions and tax breaks.

Now it's got a new scam going.  On the back of a who's who of science denying shysters, the IPC is threatening offering to publish for all the world to see, the names of anyone dumb enough to send them $400 or more to chop down trees to make door stops - or loo paper if you're extra tough.

It looks as if they can't get a publisher to pay for their trashy book so they have to resort to panhandling. You can read all about it here at Renew Economy.

I can't wait to see who are the most disreputable among the Establishment, who are willing to tattoo their names on the backside of such disreputable ratbags as Andrew Bolt, James Delingpole, Donna Laframboise, Mark Steyn,  Nigel Lawson. "Jo Nova", Jennifer Marohasy, Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and other climate science deniers from Australia and around the world.

The biosphere is breathing more heavily! Crazy quote of the day.

A quickie today.  Time is short.  Anthony Watts posted a link to a climate disinformation group who've misnamed themselves as the "International Climate Science Coalition". (See this article about them from the Sydney Morning Herald.)  Having a PhD is not a guarantee that you know stuff!  Or probably more accurately, it's no guarantee of scientific honesty.

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:

“In fact, much of the rise in CO2 is attributed to increased respiration of the biosphere. Our carbon emissions are minor compared to this natural cycling of carbon. There is absolutely no empirical scientific evidence for the increase in CO2 having affected climate.”

Puffing and panting

I was surprised to find that Ian D Clark is actually entrusted with teaching students at the University of Ottawa. Strange! Academic freedom is one thing, but teaching nonsense?  Does anyone keep an eye on what topics he covers?

The above and other crazy quotes from the anti-science coalition is archived here.

Anthony Watts and his pseudo-science from the Heartland Institute

I've already commented on the ridiculous "Not the IPCC" report with it's "CO2 is plant food" and other tired denier memes.  Anthony Watts is pushing it again today in an article on his denier blog, WUWT, written by four of the more vocal science rejectors: Fred Singer, Bob Carter, Willie Soon and Craig Idso.

Remember those names if you've never heard them before and triple check anything they say before accepting it.  They are all science disinformers.  It's what they do.

I don't have time to go through all their long article and it's too long for HotWhopper in any case.  Suffice to say that despite the title Anthony Watts gave it, it's neither scientific nor a logical critique.  If you put on your critical thinking cap you can see for yourself just how dumb this foursome thinks WUWT readers are. (Archived here.)

Here are a couple of examples under their heading of "IPCC retreats".  The IPCC extracts are in italics, the science deniers' words are not.  Bolding and italics is mine.

The Medieval Climate Anomaly was regional not global

2. “Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century” (SPM-4).

What the Heartland Institute science deniers wrote: IPCC-related scientists have previously argued that the magnitude of the late twentieth century global warming exceeded that of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The notorious “hockey stick” featured in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, and still visible in the Fourth Assessment Report, appeared to erase the MWP from the historical temperature record by showing little temperature change for thousands of years followed by a sharp rise in the twentieth century.

Climate scientists know that the Medieval Climate Anomaly was regional in nature.  The IPCC statement is not in any way a contradiction of previous work.  Science rejectors are assuming that their readers will miss the words "in some regions".  Since the only people who take any notice of these ratbags are other people who reject science, they are probably correct in their assumption.   BTW I've discussed the Medieval Climate Anomaly a few times, for example here.

"It's the sun" is wrong, but the sun can affect climate

6. “The reduced trend in radiative forcing (between 1998 and 2012) is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle” (SPM-10).

What the Heartland Institute science deniers wrote: This statement marks the first time the IPCC has acknowledged that solar factors may play a determinative role in short-term climate variability.

This is a critically important concession to the views of the many independent scientists who have concluded that solar effects play a bigger role in controlling climate than does CO2 (NIPCC, Chapter 3).

The claim of the disinformers that the IPCC hasn't discussed solar radiation before is ridiculously wrong and so easy to check.  Just do a word search for the word "solar" in any of the past reports and you'll see that these disinformers are telling a bald-faced lie when they write:  This statement marks the first time the IPCC has acknowledged that solar factors may play a determinative role in short-term climate variability.

There is no "concession".  These disinformers are making up stuff.  All IPCC reports discuss the role of solar radiation on climate.  How do these so-called scientists think the greenhouse effect works? Magic?

There's a good article on realclimate.org about attribution, which includes charts from previous reports so you can see for yourself about what is attributed to solar radiation.  Here's an animation of charts from the 1995 SAR and the 2001 TAR reports:

Source: RealClimate.org / IPCC

Below is just one example of what these pseudo-science quacks have described as "misleading or untrue" statements from the IPCC.

Many observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented in decades to millenia

2. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s many of the observed changes are unprecedented” (SPM-3).

What the Heartland Institute science deniers wrote: This statement is doubly untrue. The post-1950 warming shown by the Hadley record is of about the same magnitude and rate as the known natural warming between 1910 and 1940, and is therefore not unprecedented.

Here's the full statement in the Summary for Policy Makers (page SPM-3).

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

The IPCC report states that many of the observed changes are unprecedented - and note what the Heartland Institute employees left out.  The lying foursome say that's a lie because they reckon that they've found one thing that isn't unprecedented.  A prime example of a logical fallacy, which I'm sure HotWhopper readers, even some of the science deniers among you, will recognise.

The IPCC listed some specific observed changes that are unprecedented over decades to millenia.  And they've provided some figures to illustrate this as well as referred readers to the relevant sections of the reports. Here's just one example: it's hotter than ever in the modern record:

Data source: NASA

The denier foursome have cherry picked some changes that they argue are not unprecedented as if that negates the observed changes that are unprecedented.  They reckon there were some parts of the world that didn't warm as much as others.  Well, whoopy doo.  That doesn't mean that GLOBAL warming isn't happening.  I wouldn't mind betting they got a lot wrong even with their examples, but I can't be bothered checking because it's irrelevant.

Enough is enough

I've wasted enough time on these nincompoops.  If you want to see how much more idiotic twaddle they write, check out my take down of their ridiculous Executive Summary of their latest effort for the Heartland Institute's Not the IPCC report, or read this archived WUWT article and check their silly claims for yourself.

Heartland Institute's NIPCC science deniers make startling finds: "CO2 is plant food" and "it's the sun"

The "Not the IPCC" crowd of science deniers from the Heartland Institute have released their latest report (NIPCC page archived here).  The main authors are listed as Craig D. Idso (USA), Robert M. Carter (Australia), S. Fred Singer (USA).  The full list includes people like Tim Ball, and denier Don Easterbrook and Cliff Ollier - so you can imagine the lack of quality and silliness their report contains.

It doesn't look as if they've come up with anything new from their last equally silly report.  I've listed their "summary of findings" from their "Summary for Policy Makers" (ie the tea party in the USA).  I've put their summary document up on Google docs to save you going to the NIPCC website.

They've covered a lot of SkepticalScience's climate myths.  Like many science deniers, they seem to use Skeptical Science's most common denier memes as a cheat sheet. This so-called "report" is a load of crock.  It's nothing more than a repeat and mishmash of some of the silliest denier memes that they used in their previous "reports" from "CO2 is plant food" to "it's the sun" to "it's not warming" to "it's warming but it's a recovery from the Little Ice Age".

Here is their Summary of NIPCC’s Findings, which they list as: Source: “Executive Summary,” Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013).  I've made a brief comment for each of their claims, explaining why each is wrong.

"CO2 is only a weak greenhouse gas" - no, it's not!

False claim: Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases. 

Why it is false: CO2 is not mild.  It is the main greenhouse gas that controls earth's climate.  Although it has a smaller effect than water vapour in absolute terms, it is long-lived in the atmosphere.  A change in CO2 acts as a force on climate.  In response to the forcing, water vapour changes, known as a feedback.

"We don't understand the carbon cycle" - that's obvious!

False claim: Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1°C, almost 50% of which must already have occurred. 

Why it is false: In the absence of any other feedbacks or forcings,a doubling of CO2 would cause a warming of around the same magnitude as a 2% increase in solar radiation.  This effect takes a long time - ultimately the time it takes to complete a carbon cycle - many millenia.  Therefore it is also wrong to claim that almost 50% of which "must already have occurred".

Source: Realclimate.org

"We're building a straw man" - question is why?

False claim: A few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis. 

Why it is false: This is a strawman argument.  There has been and will continue to be much more warming than a "few tenths of a degree".  This is already causing problems for the world and it will get much worse if we do not cut emissions.

"We don't know what we're trying to argue" - well, that's obvious!

False claim: Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could cause warming of up to 6°C by 2100. Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 16 years of stable temperature.

Why it is false: Firstly the argument is very mixed up.  The doubling of CO2 is not the same as any projected surface warming by 2100.  We are on track to double atmospheric CO2 well before the end of this century, maybe triple it. Secondly, global warming has not stopped.  The first decade this century was the hottest on record, hotter than any decade in the twentieth century. In addition to surface and tropospheric temperatures, now even the deep ocean is warming up.

"It's natural" - and we're causing it!

False claim: Over recent geological time, Earth’s temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature. A warming of 2°C above today, should it occur, falls within the bounds of natural variability.

Why it is false: The causes of temperature variations in "recent geological time" are known.  The ice ages and deglaciations referred to are caused by changes in solar irradiance combined with changes in CO2 as a feedback (Milankovitch cycles).  The current changes are not a result of natural variability.  They are the result of a very rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 because of human activities - predominately the burning of fossil fuels.  The variation in temperature over the entire Holocene, since the beginning of civilisation is not likely to have exceeded +/- one degree at a maximum.  A rapid warming of 2°C above today would vastly exceed anything that could be caused by "natural variation" of anything other than our huge emissions of CO2.

"We don't believe science" - ummm - oka..a..ay

False claim: Though a future warming of 2°C would cause geographically varied ecological responses, no evidence exists that those changes would be net harmful to the global environment or to human well-being. 

Why it is false.  The main reason for the changes being so harmful is because they are happening so quickly.  Life on earth does not have time to adapt to the changes.  This is one reason we are now witnessing the beginning of the sixth major extinction event and why it's likely to speed up.  Global warming and the rapid rise of CO2 is affecting the oceans through warming of the seas plus acidification; it is affecting the land by melting ice, droughts, wildfires, heatwaves and intense precipitation.  And if you want know about potential direct harm to humans, read what the science says if web bulb temperatures were to exceed an achievable threshhold.

These changes are already causing harm and it will only get worse

"CO2 was higher before life on land existed" - errr ... so what?

False claim: At the current level of ~400 ppm we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels 15 times greater existed during the Cambrian Period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects. 

Why it is false:  This is one of the sillier of this list of silly claims.  Humans didn't even exist 550,000,000 years ago when CO2 levels were 7000 ppm and neither did any other life on land.  Life did start to flourish in the late Cambrian - just not on land.  It wasn't till CO2 dropped and oxygen increased in the atmosphere that the land was colonised with plants and animals.

"Climate changes by magic" - no it doesn't!

False claim: The overall warming since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age modulated by natural multidecadal cycles driven by ocean-atmosphere oscillations, or by solar variations at the de Vries (~208 year) and Gleissberg (~80 year) and shorter periodicities. 

Why it is false: Contrary to what Not the IPCC implies, climate does not change by magic.  Any "recovery" from the Little Ice Age has to be explained in terms of what caused the earth to warm.  Not only that, but it would have to explain why it continues to warm.  "Cycles" and "oscillations" mean that if temperature goes up from a cycle or oscillation it also goes back down again in the same cycle or oscillation.  Otherwise it's not a cycle or oscillation.  The fact is that energy is being built up in the earth system, which is causing the temperature of the air and oceans to rise, the ice to melt etc.

"It's not warming" - yes, it is!

False claim: Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, which represents 34% of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. 

Why it is false: Firstly the argument is a repeat of part of the one above. The first decade this century was the hottest on record, hotter than any decade in the twentieth century. In addition to surface temperatures, now even the deep ocean is warming up.  This is very significant!

"CO2 is plant food!" - ROTFL!

False Claim: CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere “greens” the planet and helps feed the growing human population. 

Why it is false: This is the silly denier meme of "CO2 is plant food".  C3 plants like wheat (but not maize) do respond to increased CO2, all other things being equal.  But rising CO2 makes other things not equal.  The downside working against "feeding the growing human population" are temperatures so hot that it kills crops; drought so long that crops, if they get planted at all, don't produce seed or fruit and die from dehydration; rain so intense that it washes away crops that have been planted or prevents farmers from getting into the paddocks to sow their crops; humidity such that plant disease flourishes and reduces productivity.

"It's not CO2" - yes, it is!

False claim: No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and humanrelated CO2 emissions. The parallelism of temperature and CO2 increase between about 1980 and 2000 AD could be due to chance and does not necessarily indicate causation. 

Why it is false: This one is just plain dumb.  Physics explains the greenhouse effect.  Paleoclimatology shows that when CO2 increases in the atmosphere the earth system heats up in response.  Modern climatology shows exactly the same thing.  I'm surprised at how these so-called scientists oscillate between accepting the greenhouse effect and denying it.  They are as bad as Tim Ball and his merry band of "sky dragon slayers".

"It's the sun" - not!

False claim: The causes of historic global warming remain uncertain, but significant correlations exist between climate patterning and multidecadal variation and solar activity over the past few hundred years. 

Why it is false: This is the "it's the sun" argument, which is dumb as.  The causes of historic global warming are explained by science.  The temperature keeps rising even though incoming solar radiation hasn't increased.  That's because atmospheric CO2 keeps rising.


"We're heading for an ice age!" - they didn't go quite that far, but came close!

False claim: Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions. 

Why it is false: Even if there were to be a grand minimum it would only reduce the warming by a very small amount.  Earth will continue to heat up very quickly as we continue to pour more and more waste CO2 into the air, polluting the atmosphere for centuries.

Wrap up

Nothing new from the anti-science crowd at the Heartland Institute.  It's not suprising it hasn't caused a ripple in the mainstream media.  One could say the denier mob from Heartland Institute are showing symptoms of brain deficiency.

WUWT is late to the party

I haven't seen this posted on WUWT yet.  Anthony Watts is too busy telling everyone about what the new Abbott government is doing and undoing in Australia.


Note: The "Not the IPCC Report" from the US-based anti-science lobby group, the Heartland Institute, is part of a wider disinformation campaign (as described by Bloomberg) ahead of the release of the real IPCC report at the end of September.  Members of the anti-science brigade are coming out of the woodwork.  Graham Lloyd of the Australian did his bit and so did Mail hack "journalist" David Rose (and again) as well as right wing economist (and failed banker) Matt Ridley and science denying scientist, Judith Curry (and again).

What's going to bite these other disinformers in the proverbial is that they are all saying that the IPCC report is correct (although misrepresenting it).  What will this pack of science deniers say when the real report comes out?  I guess they'll do an about face and say that 97% of scientists are wrong and tabloid journos know better.  Self-contradiction is one of the hallmarks of a science denier.

WUWT comes right out and says "We Aren't Interested" in facts

WUWT published an article yesterday by Matt Ridley in which he writes all sorts of wrong things.  An example: he calls Bob Carter a "paleo-climatologist" when he isn't (although he has misrepresented himself as an "expert witness" on numerous occasions).  In recent years Carter has shifted away from marine geology to being a professional climate science denier, publishing mostly in the magazine "Quadrant" and on retainer to the Heartland Institute as an Expert Denier. (Quadrant is a right wing political magazine, at times indistinguishable from The Onion.)

At one point in his article, Matt Ridley wrote:

Two Greek scientists recently calculated that for 67 per cent of 181 globally distributed weather stations they examined, adjustments had raised the temperature trend, so they almost halved their estimate of the actual warming that happened in the later 20th century.

A scientist and expert on the topic, Dr Victor Venema knew to what Ridley was referring and knew that the statement was misleading.  However this is what happened on WUWT when he made a comment to direct people to find out the facts and why these scientists were wrong:

WUWT isn't interested in facts, only in disinformation.  Yes, we all knew that already.  But it's good of WUWT to remind its readers of that fact from time to time.

Readers here can get the inside story from an expert on the topic.

Disinformation piled onto disinformation

There is more to the story of course.  The Ridley article on WUWT is promoting a book by Bob Carter, which Ridley indicates is filled with disinformation, using an article by Matt Ridley that is filled with disinformation on a website that is devoted to disinformation about climate.  It is so devoted to disinformation that its owner doesn't even disguise the fact and writes bald-faced lies.  He publishes articles that are so stupid one wonders if they are satire.  And the blog owner, Anthony Watts, bans people for pointing to his double standards.

Anyone who tries to point WUWT readers to facts risks getting their comment snipped and eventually banned.  I guess when one supplements their taxpayer-funded superannuation by peddling disinformation, and then gets a free promo on a disinformation blog, then one expects to be protected by the disinformation blog owner:

Whatever Ryan said was snipped by Anthony Watts:

July 15, 2013 at 6:40 am  ...

{snip}

Dr. Carter puts his life work, name, and reputation on the line while you take pot shots from the comfort of anonymity. If you want to to make criticisms like that, you are welcome to do so, but have the courage to put your own name on on the or STFU. Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony Watts

You think Bob Carter still cares about his reputation among scientists? Not on your life. He sold his soul to the disinformation brigade quite some time ago.


Hat tip to BBD in the comments on a related article.

Matt Ridley Preys on People Who are Scared of Being Scared

Is it just me or are the fake skeptics getting nuttier?  I used to think Matt Ridley was a "lukewarmer" but now he's jumped into bed with a couple of crackpots from down-under: Bob Carter and the cartoonist and science denialist John Spooner (who wrote an incoherent article I discussed some months ago).

Bob Carter is known for saying he doesn't know what is happening to the climate.  He says he prefers to be called agnostic on climate change but he's kidding you.  Bob Carter is not agnostic nor sceptical.  He's at best an ideological science denier when it comes to climate science. He's also a conspiracy nutter of the Lysenko kind.

According to Matt Ridley on WUWT, Bob Carter and John Spooner have written a book for the scaredy cats.  The article is even titled as such so the scaredy cats will know it's for them: "Abnormal extreme weather? Just another scare tactic".  It's targeted squarely at people who are looking for reassurance that climates are not changing, that extreme weather isn't happening more often.

Research suggests that the conservative brain is ultra-sensitive to fear.  It's no surprise then that the fear factor is what drives some people to reject reality and turn to charlatans like Carter, Ridley and Monckton to tell them not to worry.  There's a sucker born every minute.

Going by the Ridley piece, Carter and Spooner are most likely saying that the record heat waves, extreme floods, storms, disastrous droughts and killer wildfires in various parts of the world in the past few years are either "normal" or didn't happen.  Ridley writes:

After demolishing many other arguments for carbon taxes and climate alarm, Carter runs through recent weather events, showing that there is nothing exceptional, let alone unprecedented, about recent droughts, floods, heat waves, cyclones or changes to the Great Barrier Reef.

Carter isn't known for originality either.  One imagines he will say - there was a big flood in the 18-somethings therefore no flood can ever be considered extreme.  Tell that to the residents of Gympie, who had five floods in two years, four of those in twelve months, and two of those back to back in the space of four weeks.

A scan of the media reports from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology show that heat records, drought records and wet records continue to be broken, with very few cold records being set.  So it's not just "extreme" events that seem to be happening more it's record-breaking events.  One thing is for certain, extreme weather that wasn't "normal" last century will become "normal" this century.  Another thing, I'll pay attention to what climate scientists like Drs Lewis and Karoly find and not heed the mewings from people who feed off scaredy cats, like Bob "not a climate scientist" Carter, Matt Ridley and a conservative cartoonist.

Matt Ridley has now shifted well and truly into the anti-science denial camp.  Like Richard Tol, he's hooked up with the GWPF, a lobby group in the UK whose main purpose is to stop the world shifting to clean energy and keep the proletariat in their place.

Ridley is also losing his writing skills if the article on WUWT is anything to go by.  It comes across as a last ditch rant against global warming of the "it's not happening" kind.

Matt, have a gander at these indicators and tell us global warming is "not happening":

In case you can't tell, I have no patience for tricksters like Matt Ridley, Bob Carter and John Spooner or the fools who look to them for comfort.