TLDR at WUWT, and the Fountain of Youth at SEPP

1546 painting by Lucas Cranach the Elder.

Every week at WUWT Anthony Watts dutifully reposts a very, very long screed put together by Ken Haapala at S. Fred Singer's SEPP. It's got dreadful formatting, silly quotes, is crammed with denierisms, and did I mention it is inordinately long, meriting the Too Long Didn't Read (TLDR) tag. I don't usually bother with it and neither do many other people. Today, about four hours after the article was posted, there was a single star and this lone plaintive "thought" from one of WUWT's climate conspiracy fans:

Marcus  March 20, 2016 at 4:12 pm

…Am I only one that reads these ???

Not quite, Marcus, but almost, from what I've seen.

SEPP has discovered the fountain of youth (and immortality)

While researching this I came across the 2014 Form 990 for SEPP. It makes interesting reading. Did you know that the then 90 year old S. Fred Singer worked 60 hours a week for SEPP in 2014 (and no hours for a related organisation)? And without pay! Hard to believe, I know. It was the same in 2011 and 2012. 

That's nothing. A full 17 months after he died, Frederick Seitz, Ph.D was still listed on the SEPP website as Chairman.

To S Fred Singer, thanks for the name-calling, but with regret...

Science deniers sometimes complain that there are gatekeepers to peer reviewed publications. Yes indeed. They are called editors and scientific peers. Their job is to try to make sure that published papers meet certain minimum standards - like being accurate, being supported by evidence, and meeting accepted standards of professional decorum. In the case of S Fred Singer one would have to say he is without peers. Earlier this month, in an article at that strange website called most inappropriately "American Thinker" (archived here), Fred posted three reviews he said an article of his received from a quality journal, Eos. What is surprising is that the editor sent Fred's article out to review. What is even more surprising is that Fred seems unashamed by the scathing reviews. So much so that he shared them with the world at large (or the narrow segment that reads articles at American Thinker).

Dear Dr. Singer:

Thank you again for submitting to Eos your Opinion manuscript entitled "Geo-engineering - stopping ice ages."
Based on the recommendation of the 3 reviewers, I am not able to accept it for publication at this time. I have attached the reviewer reports for your reference.

Thank you for the opportunity to examine this work.
Sincerely,
[redacted by Sou]

No pause in the frenzy of denial: S. Fred Singer

The new paper published today in Science, by researchers at NOAA, shows that global temperatures have continued to rise at the same rate this century as they did in the second half of last century. I've discussed that paper already, in a separate article.

This article is (probably) part of a series of the "frenzy of denial" by science deniers. They really don't want to read anything that shows the world continues to warm.

Deniers are "Wow-ed"

Anthony Watts was the first out the gate, arguably breaking the embargo on the Science paper. He made no impression the first time, so he tried again. Maybe Daily Mail reporter, David Rose, beat his second article by a nose. Fred Singer from the denier lobby group, the Heartland Institute, was the first to convincingly break the embargo, with an article at some extremist right wing website, that began with the exclamation "Wow!"

Fred's article isn't fit for publishing anywhere else. It was nothing more than red herrings, squirrels and waffle, sprinkled with lies. He wrote rather enthusiastically in a style I've never seen from him before, with his "wow's" and "oh boy's". Not that I've read much of what he's written. Who would bother? Here's his opening paragraph, retaining the poor spacing:

 Wow!Science mag is publishing a blockbuster paper today, June 4.Oh boy!Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change -- this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists.Is there a “pause”?Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years, in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?

Sorry Fred. There won't be any big fuss about this from scientists. I doubt too many will be saying that the paper is wrong. Not that I've seen at any rate. The world continues to warm and the only people who dispute that are deniers.

NOAA: No pause in the global surface temperature

Anthony Watts prepared the ground on Monday, with an article, in which he alleged fraud and skulduggery at NOAA. At the time I wrote the response, I didn't know what he was referring to (and neither did anyone at WUWT). Peter Thorne was awake to it, however, and gave me time to prepare for the upcoming "frenzy of denial". He was coyly referring to a new Science paper about global surface temperature.

Anthony Watts has since written another article, breaking the embargo on this new paper, which was published in ScienceXpress today. He rationalised his behaviour by saying that "multiple sources have sent me a press release and advance copies of a paper", meaning maybe two people.

The new paper is by a team of scientists, mostly from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). The title is:

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

The paper describes an analysis of global surface temperature trends, using much more data from land stations in particular. It also includes corrections, particularly for time-related bias in sea surface temperatures. The main finding is that the trend in surface temperature this century is indistinguishable from that for the second half of last century. Global warming continues at the surface.

Update: I've added more links to blog articles elsewhere about this new paper.

WUWT is utter nutter heaven: David "funny sunny" Archibald sez his ice age is comething

Anti-science activist Anthony Watts can't make up his mind if he's coming or going. Into or out of an ice age, that is. And he wonders why people regard his blog as utter nutter heaven.

Today he's promoting David "funny sunny" Archibald again, with his ice age comething predictions (archived here). He found a spot somewhere in the world where it's been a bit cold lately, and wrote an article with the headline: "A Prediction Coming True?"

David's prediction, you may recall is that an ice age is comething. Here's what he has said will happen by 2020 - a drop of 1.5 degrees from 2005:

Data sources: GISTemp and Archibald (2006)

The chart above also shows what has happened since David's 2006 "prediction" - published in that august journal E&E - ha!. David's prediction is in yellow, the actual is in white. The year before his prediction was the hottest year on record at the time. In the eight years since his "prediction", 2010 then 2014 were the hottest years on record. Is he nuts to claim his prediction is "coming true"? What word would you use to describe his fantasy?

Is climate science denial going out of fashion? Recycling Fred Singer and his predictions

Update: I've added another chart to illustrate the size of Fred Singer's big Little Ice Age bounce :)


Are climate science deniers taking tentative steps away from denial? Lindsay Abrams wrote at Salon recently:

...it’s no longer fashionable to be a climate denier, or to promote climate denial. And it’s proving to be a rather unprofitable position as well. This has put the group in the rather awkward position of having to defend its belief in climate change.

She was writing an article about how, after lots of prominent companies quit, ALEC (the private sector "regulator") decided to come out and try to paint itself as not really rejecting climate science. Or not all of it.

Fred Singer takes one step forward

Today at WUWT (archived here) Anthony's dredged up and recycled an article from another science denier, Fred Singer. Harrytwinotter noticed that Anthony first posted this article more than three years ago - or part of it (archived here).  He's recycling again. How green can you get :)

In the article, Fred is trying to dissociate himself from the wackier end of climate science denial and paint himself more as a luke warmer. Or is he?

Twisting Patterns of Peer Review

Sheesh, it's no wonder I can't keep up with Anthony Watts today.  So far he's posted eight ten articles.  His normal daily quota is three.

Tamino alerted me to the fact that the defunct "journal" Pattern Recognition In Physics could be about to go beyond defunct.  (Not to be confused with Pattern Recognition or the International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence.) Christopher Monckton has announced he's written to Copernicus Publications offering to take it over.

I can't see Copernicus Publications accepting Monckton's offer, but it's a grand gesture on Christopher's part.  His magnanimous gesture, even if it doesn't eventuate, will help "prominent scientists" like Nicola Scafetta and Nils Axel Morner and Tallbloke achieve their rightful place in the history of science.

Another plus is that no-one will be able to accuse the editors of not having peer review any longer, if they can get a genuine peer like Christopher Monckton on board.

The fake sceptics' "publishing house" that Monckton graces the door of from time to time, SPPI, has been around for a while but I don't think anyone except fake sceptics (and we few who see what they get up to) would have heard of it.  By now lots of people will have heard of Pattern Recognition in Physics.  It even rated write-ups in Science and Nature!

Hilariously Monckton admits he couldn't get Energy and Environment, the fake sceptics "journal" to publish an article listing him as an author.  He wrote:

When I recently co-authored a paper with professor Fred Singer on the consequences of chaos theory for the predictability of global warming, the editor of Energy & Environment, one of the few journals to allow skeptical science an airing, ordered my name to be taken off the paper on the ground that it would annoy The Borg. Besides, she said, she did not like my politics (of which there was nothing whatsoever in the paper).

To put that into perspective, the "editorial advisory board" of Energy and Environment includes such non-entities as Benny Peiser of the GWPF and Richard S Courtney, a shouty playground monitor at WUWT,

According to Anthony Watts:

In an emotional commentary written for the WorldNetDaily (aka WND) Christopher Monckton has said that he’ll take over the journal and publish a first issue in March 2014. 

Well the article Christopher wrote said nothing about the first issue being published in March 2014, so whether Christopher conveyed that privately to Anthony or whether Anthony got it wrong is anyone's guess.  If he does, and since March is less than six weeks away, as DikranMarsupial points out in the WUWT comments:

dikranmarsupial says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:37 am
If Monckton suggests that he will start with a March 2014 issue. I hope he realises that recruiting action editors, attracting papers, sending them out for review, performing round or two of satisfactory peer review and getting the papers typeset in that timeframe is, errr… somwhat ambitious!

I've got another choice comment from Roger Tallbloke (archived here).  For those who don't know, he is a climate science denying blogger of no repute, and one of the people who authored four papers in the Pattern Recognition journal.  Roger was the second most prolific author after Nicola Scafetta, equal with Nils Axel Morner and JE Solheim.  Roger got very stroppy when people at WUWT got stuck into him for pal review not peer review.  Roger reckons he's going to use Christopher's mighty shoulder to heave the stone of ignorance off the path of knowledge and straighten the road, writing:

Rog Tallbloke • 6 hours ago
Bravo Christopher Monckton. As one of the authors of the PRP special issue: 'Patterns in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts', I am delighted you have come alongside us to put your mighty shoulder to the stone of ignorance. Together we will heave it off the path of knowledge and straighten the road.

Maybe it will win the next literary award.  (Is there an award for worst metaphors?)


I wonder if Anthony is about to throw Christopher to the dogs?  I doubt it.  Christopher has a bit of a fan club of forelock pulling serfs at WUWT.  Still, Anthony did finish his article with this sarcastic remark:

Judging from the comments in the WND article, it looks like Joseph A Olson (aka FauxScienceSlayer of the Slayers/PSI fame) is queuing up to submit some of his writings. I’m sure other like minded individuals will follow in seeking to publish there.

We live in interesting times.

You can read more about Pattern Recognition in Physics in this blog article by librarian Jeffrey Beall from July last year, and in recent articles at ScienceNews, in NatureNews, in a broader context at ClimateProgress, at BigCityLib and at various climate blogs, like Rabett Run and James' Empty Blog.  (There's more than one Pattern Recognition journal that has problems.)

Resurrecting Fred Singer and the MWP at WUWT

As if anyone needed more proof that WUWT is just another outlet for anti-science disinformation propaganda.  Today Anthony's put up a pack of lies by Fred Singer (archived here), who's made it his business to invent disinformation.  The article is another "hockey stick is a fraud" article.  Wouldn't it be nice if Fred Singer and Anthony Watts were added to one of the cases currently being heard in the US courts.

Fred Singer Manufactures Lies and Dispenses them at WUWT

Here is some of what Fred wrote in today's WUWT article:

...the Hockeystick is a manufactured item and does not correspond to well-established historic reality. It does not show the generally beneficial Medieval Warm Period (MWP) at around 1000AD, or the calamitous Little Ice Age (LIA) between about 1400 and 1800. In the absence of any thermometers during most of this period, the Hockeystick is based on an analysis of so-called proxy data, mostly tree rings, from before 1000AD to 1980, at which point the proxy temperature suddenly stops and a rapidly rising thermometer record is joined on.

Talk about "manufactured items".  Here are a few "hockey sticks" from the IPCC AR5 report.  I've indicated the times that are usually referred to as the MWP.  There's no fixed period.  I've also indicated the Little Ice Age - and you can see that in the case of the Little Ice Age there was cooling overall.  In the Medieval period most reconstructions in the Northern Hemisphere show a slight warming particularly starting around 950, but not so much in the southern hemisphere.  Globally there's a slight bump around 950.  So Fred's wrong on that score.  Nothing been "disappeared".  It's just that with more and more data the record is becoming more refined, but there are still differences in the different reconstructions - that aren't being hidden by anyone.  Click for larger image as always.

Figure 5.7 IPCC AR5 WG1 Reconstructed (a) Northern Hemisphere and (b) Southern Hemisphere, and (c) global annual temperatures during the last 2000 years. Individual reconstructions (see Appendix 5.A.1 for further information about each one) are shown as indicated in the legends, grouped by colour according to their spatial representation (red: land-only all latitudes; orange: land-only extra-tropical latitudes; light blue: land and sea extra-tropical latitudes; dark blue: land and sea all latitudes) and instrumental temperatures shown in black (HadCRUT4 land and sea, and CRUTEM4 land-only; Morice et al., 2012). All series represent anomalies (°C) from the 1881–1980 mean (horizontal dashed line) and have been smoothed with a filter that reduces variations on timescales less than ~50 years.

Fred bemoans the "good old days" when knowledge was scarce

Fred puts up a couple of drawings in a single image.  At the top of the drawing below is one of the images Fred included and at the bottom I've included a diagram from the first IPCC assessment report, published 24 years ago in 1990. This was before there were any global temperature reconstructions of the type we have today.  Fred is still living in the dim distant past.  He's getting on a bit (he's 89 years old) and can't hack this modern society or cope with new knowledge.

I don't know why Fred shifted the timescale to the left in his diagram above.  He could have left it as it was in the FAR report.  Anyway, about the Medieval Warm Anomaly, this is from FAR:

The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988) This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978) This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.

In FAR (WG1), the word "medieval" appears only four times, once in the above diagram and three times in the text - and not once in the title of any reference.  In the AR5 report the word "medieval" appears 45 times including in the title of numerous references.

If you look at the top chart above and then the one below, you can see the difference between what was known in 1990 with what is known from scientific research conducted since that time. You can also tell from the text.  Compare the extract from FAR above with the following from the IPCC AR5 report (my bold italics):

For average annual Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). This is supported by comparison of instrumental temperatures with multiple reconstructions from a variety of proxy data and statistical methods, and is consistent with AR4. Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multidecadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the mid-20th century and in others as warm as in the late 20th century. With high confidence, these intervals were not as synchronous across seasons and regions as the warming since the mid-20th century

You may have noticed Fred's references above were to work done in 1978, 1987 and 1988.  Fred did manage to move into the 21st century further on in his article, bypassing all the other temperature reconstructions and singling out  two authors whose work he seems to have approved from a science denying perspective.  After maligning Michael Mann and misrepresenting his early work while ignoring his later work, Fred wrote:

In actuality, we now have adequate proxy data from other sources, most particularly from Fredrick (sic) Ljungqvist and David Anderson. Their separate publications agree that there has been little if any temperature rise since about 1940! However, there was a real temperature increase between 1920 and 1940, which can be seen also in all the various proxy as well as thermometer data.

I guess Fred's not too familiar with the work of  Fredrik Ljungqvist because he misspelt his name.  Thing is, he also is not too familiar with the work of Fredrik Ljungqvist because he misrepresented it.  The following is from Ljungqvist et al (2012):

Our results show, in a comparative manner, the degree to which the various proxy types can be used to assess regional temperature variability on centennial time-scales. We conclude that during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread NH warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century mean. Our study also reveals that the 17th century was dominated by widespread and coherently cold anomalies representing the culmination of the LIA. Understandably, the centennial resolution of this study precludes direct comparison of past warmth to that of the last few decades. However, our results show the rate of warming from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 1200 yr.

And does Fredrik Ljungqvist dispute the global surface temperature record in the instrumental era as Fred claimed?  I'd say not.  Here's another section of that same paper:

Analyses of instrumental data (Brohan et al., 2006) shows that the last decade of the 20th century was much warmer than the 20th century mean nearly everywhere over NH land areas with sufficient data (Fig. C1). Moreover, the first decade of the 21st century was even warmer in most locations, thus, providing evidence that the long-term, largescale, NH warming that began in the 17th century and accelerated in the 20th century has continued unabated (see Appendix C for more details).

What about David Anderson? I couldn't find any global temperature reconstructions (or hemispherical ones either) by any David Anderson - but I probably missed it.  Anyway, if it's this David Anderson he's talking about, then Fred's barking up the wrong tree.  This from a 2002 paper:

Climate reconstructions reveal unprecedented warming in the past century; however, little is known about trends in aspects such as the monsoon. 

 Incidentally, the work of Fredrik Ljungqvist is cited several times in the AR5 report.


Below is a reference to a Ljungqvist paper plus just a sample of all the published work of Michael Mann and his various co-authors, to give you some idea of just how selective is Fred Singer.  Notice his paper on the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Anomaly.  I'd say he knows a lot more about this than does professional denier Fred Singer.

Notice too all the different authors and how Fred Singer singles out Michael Mann?  That's the Serengeti Strategy in action.

(Copies of Michael Mann's papers are usually available at his website.)

Ljungqvist, F. C., Paul J. Krusic, Gudrun Brattström, and Hanna S. Sundqvist. "Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries." Climate of the Past 8, no. 1 (2012): 227-249.. doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012 (open access).
Mann, Michael E., and Jeffrey Park. "Global‐scale modes of surface temperature variability on interannual to century timescales." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 99, no. D12 (1994): 25819-25833.

Mann, Michael E., Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes. "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries." Nature 392, no. 6678 (1998): 779-787.

Mann, Michael E., and Philip D. Jones. "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia." Geophysical Research Letters 30, no. 15 (2003).

Jones, Philip D., and Michael E. Mann. "Climate over past millennia." Reviews of Geophysics 42, no. 2 (2004): RG2002.

Mann, Michael E., Zhihua Zhang, Malcolm K. Hughes, Raymond S. Bradley, Sonya K. Miller, Scott Rutherford, and Fenbiao Ni. "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. 36 (2008): 13252-13257.

Mann, Michael E., Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell, Caspar Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, and Fenbiao Ni. "Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly." Science 326, no. 5957 (2009): 1256-1260.

From the WUWT comments

It's mostly a lot of people raging at Michael Mann, not suitable for HotWhopper. The Serengeti Strategy works for WUWT dismissives but it no longer works with the general public, from what I can see.  There are a couple of choice comments that I can print though.

Steve from Rockwood says the recent warming "doesn't look natural".  Well, duh!

January 21, 2014 at 3:25 pm
Just looking at Mann’s reconstruction – it doesn’t look natural. The Earth has been cooling for 1,000 years and suddenly warms out of control? It can’t be real. If he had left in the LIA and MWP maybe I would have believed him.

Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale must have a soft spot for Fred, because he accepts Fred's lies - though he couldn't swallow some of Don Easterbrook's lies yesterday. He says:

January 21, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Thanks, Fred. Nicely done.

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.

Fifty to One Moncktonian Codswallop!

I was going to refute the Monckton "facts" parroted by Topher, an actor who conned tens of thousands of dollars out of readers of denier blogs, but there are no facts to refute.  I can't believe anyone put their name to this 50 to 1 video. I can't even credit Jo Nova would - and she's as batty as they come.  It's even worse than the typical Monckton diatribe.

For starters Monckton uses unusual units.  The science is kaput and so divorced from reality you'd think he was talking about a planet in a far off universe.  On the "economics" he assumes Australia is the only country to price carbon, which is a pile of nonsense.  We were late to the party.  For another thing he assumes no benefits.  And then he makes up a pile of numbers out of thin air.  None of it makes any sense at all.  It's utter garbage.  Full of wrong numbers.  Full of fake references.  I picked out a couple of quotes from the video in my previous article if you're interested.

Did I say it's a pile of codswallop?  Topher will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Deniers are bloody barmy.

If anyone wants to read the Monckton diatribe it I've put the document up on google docs here, so neither Topher nor Watts will get any hits.

So far the response on WUWT has been underwhelming.  Anthony posted his article about seven and a half hours ago and so far only 30 responses.  There might be a few more as people in the USA wake up and start bashing away at their keyboards.  There aren't too many tweets either.  (An article bashing Professor Mann or John Cook gets a much more vigourous response and at no cost to deniers.)  The youtube video has around 1700 hits FWIW.

The deniers who have written comments reckon they got their moneys worth.  Goodness knows why.  I guess they like coloured cartoons.

Sorry to disappoint you all.  But truly.  There is nothing to refute.  It's a dogs breakfast.

Oh, there is a heap of very long one hour videos with the various interviewees, too.  It would take someone of much sterner stuff than I'm made of to wade through those.  I'll just list the deniers interviewed and if any are familiar to you then you can guess what they say.

• "Jo Nova" and her partner her partner David Evans.
• Anthony Watts - oops, sorry wrong one - it's this Anthony Watts
• Donna Laframboise
• Marc Morano
• Fred Singer
• Henry Ergas

Give me insects any day :)



PS A humorous note, the mods at WUWT weren't briefed on WUWT fund-raising for the Topher video atrocity.  This from the tips on WUWT.

Tom in Texas says:

September 1, 2013 at 7:02 pmThe 50 : 1 website & video is now up at:
http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/

[You have not explained what the 50:1 project is, and why Anthony should spend his time researching your link. Mod]