Is climate disinformer Ross McKitrick dishonest or dumb?

I admit some reluctance in writing this article because I find it hard to believe anyone, even Ross McKitrick, could get it so wrong.  So if anyone finds a flaw in my interpretation, don't hesitate to sing out.  The article I'm writing about is archived here.

Ross McKitrick is an economist who spends time undermining climate science.  As far as I can make out, he sees his job as to try to persuade governments and people to rush headlong off a cliff.  The purpose is not clear. The motives for the immoral behaviour don't really matter.  The fact that it's immoral is enough.

Ross McKitrick is either intellectually challenged when it comes to matters scientific or dishonest.  Since he has an academic background I'll leave it to the reader to make up their own mind.

Today he's written another very silly article and managed to get it published on a very silly Canadian website (archived here).  It's all part of the various attempts by science deniers to get out their denier memes in advance of the IPCC report at the end of this month.

Ross McKitrick's put up a flawed chart from what is said to be an early working draft of the soon-to-be-released first volume of the IPCC report.  The chart shows projections of surface temperature with an overlay of the global surface temperature anomaly.  The chart itself is flawed as Tamino explains:

The flaw is this: all the series (both projections and observations) are aligned at 1990. But observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas the projections do not because the average of multiple models averages those out. Using a single-year baseline (1990) offsets all subsequent years by the fluctuation of that baseline year. Instead, the projections should be aligned to the value due to the existing trend in observations at 1990.

Aligning the projections with a single extra-hot year makes the projections seem too hot, so observations are too cool by comparison. This is indeed a mistake — it would be just as much a mistake to align the projections with a single extra-cool year (like 1992), which would make the projections too cool and observations too hot by comparison.

Reading Tamino further, the projections should start about 0.1 degree lower to be in line with the trend.

Ross McKitrick is trying to tell his readers that the observed temperature is about to pop out of those bounds and therefore there is nothing to worry about.  Ross won't convince anyone but deniers that he's "right" about there being nothing to worry about.  That's why I say he's not doing a very good job.

The reason I say Ross is intellectually challenged when it comes to matter scientific is this.  He writes:

The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period (from 1990). But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

First of all, if the observed temperature anomaly was within the margin of error, then the models can't be said to have "significantly over-predicted the warming".  As well as that, here's an animation showing where Ross's "should be" rise of 0.9 degrees from 1990 would put the observations:

The black bar shows the AR4 model range (brown range) for the last year of observations on the chart. I've also indicated where the bottom of the range would be if the modeled projections were properly aligned.  Then I've added where Ross McKitrick says the top range should be, with his 0.9 degrees above the 1990 temperature, which would make it around 1.2 degrees.  As you can see Ross's not just a little bit out, he's out by a huge margin.  Even without aligning the modeled projections properly, Ross's "should be" is much further away from the AR4 mean than the actual observations are.

Ross's 0.2 degrees higher than 1990 would bring the temperature up to plus 0.5 degrees, which is above the mid-point of the AR4 projection without even aligning the models properly - as seen below.  So he's way out with the bottom of his "should be" range as well:  Corrected - thanks to Lars Karlsson :)

Thing is, one has to be careful with using particular data points.  It's the trend that matters. Ross McKitrick should know better.  Either he does know better and he's a paid disinformer or he's stupid.

Anthony hasn't published this one yet.  I wonder if he will.  He must be finding it hard to choose between all the silly attempts by denialists with all their different spins on something that has yet to be finalised and released.

Note: I initially thought the author of the article was Pat Michaels.  It's actually Ross McKitrick.  And no-one noticed - which just goes to show all science deniers look the same.  Hard to tell them apart  :)

Editing the Environment out of Existence: Graham Lloyd and The Australian tell Big Fat Lies

UPDATE 2: Media Watch did pick up on this tonight (23 Sept 13).  Good for them!
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3854782.htm


UPDATE: The Australian has printed this in its weekend edition today (h/t John Quiggin):

It didn't pick up on all the wrongs in the Lloyd article, it didn't fix the original article and it didn't stop The Australian from publishing more wrong claims about the IPCC and climate science in the same edition today (Saturday 21 September 2013).

---

Graham Lloyd is a science denier.  Graham Lloyd is "Environment Editor" of a national newspaper and a science denier.  Graham Lloyd peddles disinformation, is "Environment Editor" of a national newspaper and is a science denier.


Australian climate hawks knew that already.  Here is the latest evidence for this - archived here.

Editing the Environment out of Existence

My thinking is that Graham takes his job title the wrong way.  In most newspapers the title of "Environment Editor" signifies someone who reports to the public on newsworthy matters relating to the environment.

In Graham Lloyd's case he and his paymasters are trying to edit the environment out of existence.

Tim Lambert of Deltoid for many years chronicled the Australian's War on Science.  Now the Australian is waging a War on our Future.  By editing out the environment they are also editing out the future for humanity.  But they know that already.  The question is - do all their readers know that?

Today's Battle - Big Fat Lies

In today's effort to hasten the sixth major extinction, Graham Lloyd starts off with a big fat lie (archived here):

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

I've dealt with that wrong statement already - more than once.  It's not merely disinformation it's a lie.  It's been all over the internet that it's a lie.  If Graham Lloyd wasn't aware of the fact when he lazily and willing repeated the lie that David Rose told, then he is a very poor journalist (well, he is that anyway).

The previous IPCC report stated that between 1956 and 2005 the world had warmed by 0.13 degrees:

The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM} 

Graham Lloyd writes (see below) that since 1951 the world has warmed by 0.12 degrees.

Compare 0.13 degrees for one period and 0.12 degrees for a slightly longer period.  Where is the fifty per cent?  Not there. I did my own calculations and got similar results.  Both numbers are accurately reported by the IPCC!  Graham Lloyd is telling a Big Fat Lie.

(Did anyone else notice the reference to the IPCC "computer"?  Oh my!  Does Graham really think the highly complex and sophisticated earth system models are run on a little laptop operated by one of the 12 employees of the IPCC?)

Graham Lloyd Tries to Shift the Blame for his Big Fat Lie

Graham continues:

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Here Graham shows what a seedy character he is.  He uses a slimy gossippers 'trick' of spreading lies while blame-shifting "I'm only telling you what I heard!".  But he refused to tell you that what he read was wrong.  It's a lie.  If he adhered to a code of ethics he'd not have printed the lies.  He's been reporting on climate for years so surely he is familiar with the content of the IPCC reports.  If he didn't know that David Rose has a reputation as a disinformer then as an editor he has a responsibility to take two minutes to check the IPCC report itself.  But Graham does know that David Rose tells lies because he reports as much.  To see how he uses the lies he knows that David Rose told, read on.

How's this for Seedy Spin?

Even knowing something is a lie doesn't stop Graham.  He'll stoop to anything for a chance to destroy the planet.  Denied the opportunity to spread another lie - Rose's ludicrous "crisis talks" lie, Graham uses a gutter press tactic - the "forced to deny" approach.  He writes:

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.

Or "have you stopped beating your wife?"

How can such a person be "Environment Editor" of a national newspaper?  Is he devoid of values and ethics or does the Australian itself demand of him that he spread disinformation, innuendo and lies?  Of course he'd never get a job with any reputable newspaper so he's a bit stuck if he wants to get paid for deceiving the general public.  I guess he could freelance for PrisonPlanet or InfoWars or Canada Free Press.

Thing is, given that Graham Lloyd reports that the IPCC showed David Rose up in this lie, why does Graham Lloyd repeat all the other lies told by David Rose at all, or if he must repeat them surely he should let his readers know that David Rose lied!

The facts are buried deep

Way down, after Graham has done his "duty" he decides that he'd better make a weak attempt at pretending to be an environment editor rather than an environment wrecker.  He writes what "is believed".

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

Believed by whom, Graham doesn't say.  The report hasn't yet been released.  It won't be released until the end of the month.  Which is why people like Graham Lloyd are getting in early.  To try to get people to not believe their eyes or what they read in the papers.

The rest of the article is junk.  He writes about the incomprehensible comments Judith Curry made to David Rose and what fibs Matt Ridley wrote in the Wall Street Journal plus more on a "forced to deny" garbage.

The Lies of Graham Lloyd and The Australian should not be tolerated

The appalling behaviour of Graham Lloyd and the Australian should not be tolerated in Australia.  Our media has a responsibility to portray facts.  I don't know what can be done.  I'll make this contribution but I hope that there is at least one other person who has the integrity and clout to do more.

To read more about the reaction to this War on our Future, here are some other reports and commentary.  As you can see - the disinformers are simply repeating each other's lies and spin.  That's all they have in waging their war against the environment and their war on humanity's future:

Phil Plait on Bad Astronomy at Slate

Dana Nuccitelli at the UK Guardian and more here

HotWhopper - here and here and here and here

Maybe the ABC's Media Watch will help expose the disinformation from Graham Lloyd.  You can help by sending them a tip. - And they did!  (Thanks, people!)

Disinformer David Rose of the Daily Mail takes another denialist "swinge"

Update: The UK Met Office has commented on David Rose's latest article.

Serial disinformer David Rose from the tabloid rag the Daily Mail doesn't care about facts, only headlines.  He's come out with another "not even wrong" article (archived here) as a follow up to his last one.

David starts with a false headline: Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

Unsurprisingly, David doesn't cite any of the world's top scientists so I figure he just made that up.  It's what he does - see here and here and here and here and here and here and here (and more here).

David Rose "swinges" about clean energy and taxation

David could hardly be seen as more "wrong" if he wore a sandwich board saying "I reject and deny science". He goes on to write about the IPCC reports that "they are cited worldwide to justify swingeing (sic) fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy".

Now we've got his reason for rejecting science out of the way (he prefers dirty energy and doesn't like paying tax), let's see what lies he's spouting this time.

David Rose flunks arithmetic

Remember his headline of just HALF? In addition to wanting dirty energy and not liking taxation, David Rose can't do simple sums, he writes:

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models. 

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

David, like some other deniers we know, fails at arithmetic.  0.12 is 60% of 0.2, not 50%.  That amount of difference can make or break a candidate's hope for re-election :D

David also lied.  Here is what is written in the IPCC AR4 report - a linear trend from 1956 to 2005 = 0.13°C per decade. Not a 0.2°C per decade in sight!

If anything, the linear trend has increased!

Do you still wonder about David's implied claim that the IPCC said the world has warmed at 0.2 degrees since 1951 and is only warming at 50% of that - or 60% if you use David's numbers rather than his wrong calculation?  What I think he must have done is try to convince his readers that the modeled projection for future temperature rises under a "business as usual" scenario was the same as the actual rise since 1951.  But who knows.  The mind of the science denier is a tangle of lies and disinformation and it's not for me to try to fathom.

So instead let's look at the record itself.  Here is a chart of global average surface temperature from 1951 to the present, and from 1951 to 2006 - the last full year before the publication of IPCC's AR4 report:

Interesting, eh.  To get a very rough estimate, subtract the value at the bottom of the trend line (the straight line) from the value at the top of the trend line, divide by the number of years and multiply by ten.  (But don't tell Tamino I said this!)  If you do the sums you'll get the following:

• 1951-2006 trend ~ 0.124 degrees per decade
• 1951-2012 trend ~ 0.127 degrees per decade.

If you want to quibble about decimal places, let's round it to two decimal places.  The linear trend has increased from 0.12 degrees a decade for 1951 to 2006 to to 0.13 degrees a decade for 1951 to 2012!

David Rose has a lot of cheek, too.  Pretending that he "first reported" a pause.  He doesn't say, but what he is most likely referring to is another slab of lies and disinformation that the Met Office called him out on - here and here.

The Incomprehensible Judith Curry

I'll mention that David quotes Judith Curry (scientist turned denying fan of David Rose) as saying it's "incomprensible to me" that the IPCC would state, very conservatively, that it is 95% certain that humans have caused more than half the temperature rise from 1951 to 2010.  Some science suggests we've caused more than 100% of the rise in temperature since the 1950s.  Here's an article on realclimate.org about attribution and one on SkepticalScience, with this chart:

Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple),Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange). . 
Source: SkepticalScience.com

Going by David Rose's record, I won't take it as read that Judith Curry did say that.  However there is little that she says these days that surprises me.  She could claim tomorrow that the moon was made of cheese and it wouldn't surprise me.  Although she probably wouldn't be categorical and would add "but there is a lot of uncertainty" and "we can't be sure if it's Italian cheese". (Apologies to Italians and their wonderful cheeses.)

And he has a long blurb about how Nic Lewis, who is not a climate scientist, reckons he knows a lot more about climate than do the meteorologists at the UK Met.  I can't follow that bit at all.  Here is a report of decadal forecasting by the UK Met Office and a link to information on its HADCM3 model.

This article is more of a mish mash than other articles by David Rose.  It hops and skips and jumps all over the place.  I'd say he's rattled.  He denies the science but is finding it hard to balance his denial with his possible desire to be viewed as anything but another James Delingpole or Anthony Watts.

I won't bother** going into any more detail of the rest of it because it's a gish gallop of "the models are wrong", Bob Ward said his last article was "error strewn" (it was) and complaints about allusions to Nazis - which I myself abhor but which denialati more commonly resort to than do people who accept science.

Message to David Rose - you are just another denier who has somehow managed to hold down a job with a UK tabloid.  Try writing an article on UFOs and little green men from Mars and your typical fans will probably "believe" you.



** I ended up bothering, because it reappeared on WUWT and elsewhere.  Read more here.

Hat tip to Lars Karlsson in the comments.

Pat Michaels is full of crap (again)

Dr Patrick J Michaels, the chief science disinformer from the Cato Institute, tells WUWT-ers what climate hawks already knew, that during the Eemian, it's likely that Greenland ice sheet only contributed maybe a couple of meters of the large sea level rise.

The good news...?

From ScienceDaily back in January this year:

Jan. 23, 2013 — A new study provides surprising details on changes in Earth's climate during the last warm period (120,000-128,000 years ago). Even though temperatures in Northern Greenland were 5-8 degrees Celsius higher than today, the thickness of the ice sheet was only a few hundred meters lower. And this despite the fact that sea level was 4-8 metres higher than today.

This indicates that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet may have contributed less than half of the total sea level rise at the time. This interglacial period (the so called "Eemian") may be a good analogue for where the Greenland ice sheet is heading today in the face of increasing greenhouse gases and warming temperatures.

But then Michaels writes a load of crap that he's tried on before:

Whew! Thus does one revolutionary paper shoot pretty much the entire global warming sea-level catastrophe—the one worth being concerned about—through the heart. Antarctica is so cold that it is projected to gain ice in the coming century, as slightly increased precipitation—which may have recently been detected—falls as more snow, which compacts into more ice.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

The bad news!

Back to ScienceDaily (my bold):

"A thick Greenland ice sheet connected to much warmer conditions in Greenland is astounding but no reason to relax and watch what the future of human-made warming has in store for us," says Prof. Hubertus Fischer, ice core scientist at the University of Bern. "Fact is that the warming was accompanied by a sea level rise of 4-8 metres. Such a sea-level rise would be a disaster for the more than 7 billion people living on this planet today, even if it takes a couple thousand years to be reached."

The apparent good news from this study is that the Greenland ice sheet may not be as sensitive to temperature increases as previously thought. However, the bad news is that if Greenland did not disgorge larger parts of its ice into the ocean during the Eemian, then Antarctica and here especially the more climate sensitive West Antarctic Ice Sheet must be responsible for a significant part of the 4-8-metre sea level rise and may be even more sensitive to climate warming than previously thought.

D. Dahl-Jensen et al. Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core. Nature, 2013; 493 (7433): 489 DOI: 10.1038/nature11789

About Antarctica

Yes, there were some heavy snowfalls in East Antarctica for a couple of seasons last decade.  But that's more than offset (times over) by West Antarctica and the Peninsula, which have always been regarded as where the first sea level rise will come from in Antarctica.  And the way we're going it will probably start in earnest before this century is done.

You can read some recent papers on Pine Island glacier here courtesy Google Scholar.

I wrote recently about a new paper on Antarctica that studies the pattern of melting ice shelves around the entire continent. Ice shelves slow the flow of the rivers of ice. (Click for larger version.)