Global Warming Blamed For Shrinking Species In New Study

WASHINGTON -- From the mighty polar bear to the tiny house sparrow, many of Earth's species appear to be shrinking in size, a new study reports. And the authors think it's probably due to global warming, a little like wool sweaters that shrink when washed in hot water.

But other experts say that conclusion goes too far, blaming global warming for what may be natural changes.

The new research was published online Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. It's based on a review of other studies and found that 38 of 85 animal and plant species showed a documented reduction in size over decades, including a type of Scottish sheep that is 5 percent smaller than in 1985. Those studies looked at species over different time periods and in varying numbers.

The shrinking victims, according to the study, include cotton, corn, strawberries, bay scallops, shrimp, crayfish, carp, Atlantic salmon, herring, frogs, toads, iguanas, hooded robins, red-billed gulls, California squirrels, lynx and wood rats.

Two years ago, Scottish researchers made news with the shrinking sheep study. Several studies have shown that polar bears, which rely on sea ice during the summer, also are not as big. And this latest study said the house sparrow's weight has dropped by one-seventh from 1950 to 1990. A bird called the graceful warbler showed a 26 percent weight drop during the same time period.

"There is a trend in a number of organisms across the board from plants to big vertebrates getting smaller," said study co-author Jennifer Sheridan, a biology researcher at the University of Alabama. "The theory is as things get warmer they don't need to grow as large."

Most of these animals are cold-blooded so the warmer the weather, the faster their metabolism is and the more calories they burn, Sheridan said. There's a biological law, called Bergmann's rule, that says that as it gets colder, animals get bigger. This is the unwritten flip side of it, she said.

But Yoram Yom-Tov, a zoologist at Tel Aviv University whose studies Sheridan used in her research, said many species are shrinking, and you can't blame global warming exclusively.

"Changes in body size are a normal phenomenon," Yom-Tov wrote in an email. "When conditions are favorable, they increase in size or reproduce at higher rates, and when conditions are deteriorating, they do the opposite. I think that most species will adapt to climate change and survive. No need for alarm."

And Stanford biologist Terry Root, an expert in climate change, said the study's conclusions "seem kind of far-fetched."

___

Online:

Comments

[Publicola]

03:02 PM on 10/25/2011

NZCSC Founding Scientist Bob Carter Debunked

NZCSC Global Warming Scientist Bob Carter Uses Trick to Hide The Incline in Global Warming.*

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) leader Bob Carter is a leader of and/or contributor to several of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical­" of man-made global warming including:

* The Heartland Institute

* International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

* Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

* Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

Dear Orkneygal,

Isn't NZCSC founding leader Bob Carter committing de facto fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trends as flat?*

If you disagree please provide a valid scientific rational to support the NZCSC's Bob Carter's deeply misleading misrepresentation of global warming temperature data over recent decades.*

Also:

You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

Please answer these questions instead of continuing to run away from them - thank you.

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

[Orkneygal]

05:39 AM on 10/23/2011

The praise for Canadian free speech advocate Donna Laframboise’s important and impressive expose of the IPCC continues to roll in. Here's a snippet from a review by noted commentator Peter Foster of the prestigious Financial Post.

"After the embarrassment of “Glaciergate,” which came on top of the much more serious “Climategate,” the InterAcademy Council (IAC), which represents international academies of science, was tasked with examining the IPCC process. One of Ms. Laframboise’s greatest coups was to gain access to at least some of the responses to a questionnaire the IAC sent to IPCC authors. Far from “consensus,” those responses — which she cites in detail — indicate widespread concern, confusion and distrust.

She introduces us to numerous well-credentialled skeptics, including Jason Johnston, an expert in environmental law, who set out to verify whether the IPCC reports in fact “conformed with the peer-reviewed climate science literature.” His conclusion: “on virtually every major issue in climate change science,” IPCC reports “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties.”"

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/

[gallon]

11:04 AM on 10/23/2011

More spamming and hijacking by this serial denier.

An almost exact copy of this post already appears under another climate article here on HuffPost.

It is always a variation of bashing the IPCC. Orkney may be working for some professional PR organization, working to undermine the science effort. Orkney has been bashing IPCC, and a few others for over a year now. The message has not changed much in all that time, in hundreds of posts.

[realpolitic]

04:40 PM on 10/23/2011

Lies, misrepresentations, and a bible for climate change deniers, October 16, 2011 By Peter Gleick "PGleick"  

This review is from: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (Kindle Edition)

This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change. It compiles the old arguments, long refuted, about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarizes the state of science on climate change. The IPCC reports -- the most comprehensive summary of climate science in the world -- are so influential and important, that they must be challenged by climate change deniers, who have no other science to stand on. LaFramboise recycles these critiques in a form bound to find favor with those who hate science, fear science, or are afraid that if climate change is real and caused by humans then governments will have to act (and they hate government).

Are you already convinced that climate change is false? Then you don't need this book, since there is nothing new in it for you.
If you respect science, then you ALSO don't need this book, since there's no science in it, and lots of pseudo-science and misrepresentations of science. See, especially, the section trying to discredit the "hockey stick" -- long a bugaboo of the anti-climate change crowd. Seven independent scientific commissions and studies have separately verified it, but you won't find out about that in this book.

Really: save your money and battery life.

[gallon]

05:02 PM on 10/23/2011

No wonder the Orkneygal was going on in praise of the 'Wonderful Dona laFramboise"
Orkney draws her material from sources like this. Especially the constant IPCC bashing. Hmmm. Makes one wonder about the actual identity of the Orkney. Many many parallels between laFramboise and Orkney.

Thanks Realpolitic

[realpolitic]

10:12 PM on 10/21/2011

Orkneygal does not even try to answer the questions of many of us anymore who believe in science. She has become so cynical she is content to spam propaganda about anti-science books and from oil industry-sponsored right wing sites, while denying any legitimate science as part of some hoax or conspiracy. As TheEmptyMonty said, climate science deniers don't base their beliefs on evidence. They have a philosophi­cal or psychologi­cal objection to AGW, not a scientific critique. As such, scientific evidence, and all empirical data, have no effect on their understand­ing of the world. Too bad!

[jimboy71]

04:12 PM on 10/22/2011

Moreover, they are convinced that rhetoric trumps reality. In effect, saying that something is so makes it so, in complete contravention of any actuality.

It is looking glass thinking for the end of empire. And it is a cancer upon our culture.

[realpolitic]

04:26 PM on 10/22/2011

I agree, Jim and tragically, so many conservatives seem infected by it.  After telling some false narrative they may repeat "i believe it" as if that makes it so.  They do not care that 98% of scientists stand firmly behind AGW or that there is tons of evidence behind Natural Selection. They just believe what they want.  If we keep going this way the science textbooks in Kansas and Texas will teach the sun revolves around the earth and prayer will be a given in schools. Then they will further want to erode church-state boundaries and perhaps some form of Christian Shariah law based on the Ten Commandments.  I think the thinking you describe accurately as a complete contravention of reality is very dangerous.

[Publicola]

07:10 PM on 10/21/2011

U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2010):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.

Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[Orkneygal]

05:13 PM on 10/21/2011

Again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my many supporters for their marvelous expressions of good cheer here at HuffPo.

As all carefull readers know, those that flag my comments in the hopes of supressing the truth have NEVER been upheld by the moderators.

I thank the HuffPo moderators for the job they do on these thread to assure that the views of the truth seekers are broadcast throughout the community of the true environmentalists.

The moderating team has to chosen to censor my specific comments in response to one particular repeated defamer of an internationally respected scientist due his flouting of the defamation laws in New Zealand. I understandwhy the HuffPo moderating team has chosen to do this even though the defamer remains clueless about his transgressions.

Again, I take this opportunity to thank my many supporters for their continuing expressions of support.

[Publicola]

06:21 PM on 10/21/2011

Orkneygal: "The moderating team has to chosen to censor my specific comments in response to one particular repeated defamer of an internationally respected scientist due his flouting of the defamation laws in New Zealand. I understand­why the HuffPo moderating team has chosen to do this even though the defamer remains clueless about his transgress­ions."

lol..

Dear Orkneygal,

Got Delusion?

As I explained to you downthread:

Orkneygal (downthread): "The HUFFPO moderators don't let our meaningful­, fact filled response to be published on these threads. We are advised that the reason for this censoring by HUFFPO is because they do not want to be party to any crimes you may have committed under defamation laws in New Zealand."

Your assertion Orkneygal that HuffPo is allowing me to "defame" Bob Carter and yourself while also censoring your substantive­ "defenses" against said "defamation" would ITSELF constitute HuffPo being a "party" to said "defamation", and moreover considerably more so than if they did not censor your "defenses"­.

Which is to say: Your accusation against HuffPo re- censorship is ludicrous on its face.

continued...

[Publicola]

06:33 PM on 10/21/2011

…continued.

You have Orkneygal repeatedly claimed to not be familiar with or interested in Bob Carter's work. In which case, how would you know that Bob Carter's misrepresentation of increasing global temperature trends as flat* is not de facto fraud, to say nothing of being able to substantively defend Carter's de facto fraud?

Moreover I can see your responses to me that have been censored, and far from being "meaningful­" and "fact filled" (to say nothing of scientific­ally-valid­) they have instead been the substance-­free ad hominem mud-throwi­ng rantings of someone who is evidently bitterly angry and delusional - of course HuffPo would censor that substance-free ad hominem invective/crapolla.

So again:

Dear Orkneygal,

Please explain in scientific­ally-valid detail why you would have us believe that Bob Carter has not committed de facto fraud.*

Also:

­Bob Carter is also a founding leader of the "skeptical­­" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). Y­ou Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationsh­ip do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

Please answer these questions instead of continuing to run away from them - thank you.

----------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php

[realpolitic]

09:59 PM on 10/21/2011

"The classic mark of antiscience thinking is the cherry picking of sciency-sounding bits of data to support a rhetorical argument designed to convince someone of a predetermined conclusion. Rhetorical arguments are OK and are the way most of us navigate life to get what we need. But they become antiscience when we use them to attempt to refute data-based arguments by only presenting the data that support our position, instead of also considering the data that do not support it."  Orneygal is the master of this technique!

[Publicola]

11:35 AM on 10/21/2011

SPPI Global Warming Scientist Bob Carter Debunked

Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI) global warming scientist uses Trick to Hide The Incline in global warming.*

SPPI global warming scientist Bob Carter is a leader of and/or contributor to several of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical­" of man-made global warming including:

* The Heartland Institute

* Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

* International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

* Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

Dear Orkneygal,

Isn't SPPI global warming scientist Bob Carter committing de facto fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trends as flat?*

Isn't that like a global warming hoax, a climate science scam, an indefensible lie?

If you disagree again please provide a valid scientific rational to support SPPI global warming scientist Bob Carter's deeply misleading misrepresentation of global warming temperature data over recent decades - thank you.

SPPI global warming scientist ­Bob Carter is also a founding leader of the "skeptical­" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). Y­ou Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

Please answer these questions Orkneygal instead of continuing to run away from them - thank you.

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

[Orkneygal]

07:12 AM on 10/21/2011

I thank the HuffPo moderators for the job they do on these threads to assure that the views of the truth seekers are broadcast throughout the community of the true environmentalists.

As all carefull readers know, those that flag my comments in the hopes of supressing the truth have NEVER been upheld by the moderators.

[gallon]

07:35 AM on 10/21/2011

From what planet are you visiting us, Orkney?
Under this very story, you have already had two of your propaganda hit pieces deleted.
More trouble with your truth circuits today?

[jimboy71]

12:05 PM on 10/21/2011

You just faved that post, dude.

;)

[Publicola]

10:55 AM on 10/21/2011

Orkneygal, downthread: "The HUFFPO moderators don't let our meaningful­, fact filled response to be published on these threads."

Dear Orkneygal,

Got Cognitive Dissonance?

[Orkneygal]

04:31 AM on 10/21/2011

Frequent HuffPo contributor Peter Gleick is being absolutely eviscerated for his review of the wonderful Canadian free speech advocate Donna Laframboise's important new book about the operations of the IPCC.

Here's just one example of the mess Dr Gleick has caused himself….

" Peter Gleick: If you need it, I will give you the 4.95, so you can actually read the book. I bought the pdf version, so I can lend you that.

A short summary, Peter. The book is about how the IPCC is structured, and how it works, albeit dysfunctionally. Its about how the IPCC is composed of climate activists from NGOs like Greenpeace, the WWF and EDF. Its about how the IPCC ignores its own rules, especially on grey literature. Its about how, when an independent review made recommenadtions to reform the IPCC, the IPCC simply ignored most of them.

Most telling is the recommendation to institute a Conflict of Interest (COI) rule. I find it amazing that a large governmental organization DOES NOT HAVE A COI code.

When asked why the COI has not been put in place for the AR5, Pachuari replied that it would be unfair to the members who had already been chosen. (!?!)

So, Peter, you are supposedly a scientist. Try researching the topic next time, please."

http://tinyurl.com/3zuyq8p

[gallon]

06:24 AM on 10/21/2011

Way way off topic. This poster is deliberately hijacking HuffPost. Flagged.
More professional denier activity, another round of IPCC bashing.

[gallon]

08:09 AM on 10/21/2011

Orkney on Oct 16th: "If you had any courage or integrity, you would address your concerns directly to Dr Carter rather than to spread malicious Rommulan inspired nonsense behind his back here at HUFFPO."

Orkney today: "Peter Gleick this, Peter Gleick that, Peter Gleick the other."

Well, in you own words Orkney, If you had any courage or integrity, you would address your concerns directly to Peter Gleick rather than to spread your malicious Ferengi gossip behind his back here on the Huffington Post. Doubly despicable in your case Orkney.

How is the rump roast going? You'll like that. Very traditional dish, in some parts.

[realpolitic]

04:17 AM on 10/21/2011

Porkney,

The book you are recommending written by Donna Laframbois­e, who has a degree in women's studies and has scant knowledge of climate change, tries to discredit the "hockey stick" graph - long a bugaboo of the anti-climate change crowd.   On the other hand, seven independen­t scientific commission­s and studies have separately verified it, but you won’t find out about that in the book. 

Porkney:  Do you think it was ethical of Ms. Laframboise not to mention the seven independent scientific commissions and studies that have separately verified the "hockey stick"graph?  Why or why not? 

Why do you recommend a book so obviously flawed and one-sided?  Did you even read it?


Why would Dr. Judith Curry, a supposed legitimate academic who happens, by the way, to accept the consensus that man-made co2 emissions are causing climate change, recommend such an obviously flawed, biased, one-sided work?

Please answer.  Dr. Curry's tattered reputation is on the line!

[jimboy71]

09:05 AM on 10/21/2011

I'll go ask Donna. She lives in my city.

[realpolitic]

03:22 PM on 10/21/2011

Ask her where she studied her propaganda techniques!

[jimboy71]

11:53 AM on 10/21/2011

Also, I gave you the rest of the badges, just because.

[realpolitic]

03:21 PM on 10/21/2011

Thanks, Jim!

[Rich Cash]

10:33 PM on 10/20/2011

The inclusion of cotton and corn make this whole study suspicious. These are two of the most intensely cultivated crops on the planet. Nothing about either of them is not directly controlled by man. Their height at maturity, their yeild per acre, their resistances to disease and predation, nothing. Any "shrinkage" in the two plants was deliberately induced.

[Publicola]

10:59 PM on 10/20/2011

"Any "shrinkage­" in the two plants was deliberate­ly induced. "

And you know this... how, exactly?

[Rich Cash]

11:47 PM on 10/20/2011

Because every aspect of these plants are controlled by the seed producers and the growers. Both are essentially man-made products. Any undesired variation would have been weeded out.

[jimboy71]

09:07 AM on 10/21/2011

It would also depend on what corn and what cotton. Both plants still exist in semi-wild states.

[Publicola]

09:53 PM on 10/20/2011

American Association for the Advancement of Science (Dec 2009):
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-----------------------------------

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.

“The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities­, and the need to take action is urgent,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1204climate_statement.shtml

[Publicola]

09:46 PM on 10/20/2011

ICSC Chief Science Adviser Commits De Facto Fraud*

Tom Harris, ICSC's Executive Director, repeatedly refused to address de facto fraud by ICSC Chief Science Adviser Bob Carter.**

The ICSC's Bob Carter is a leader of and/or contributor to several other prominent organizations that are "skeptical­" of man-made global warming as well, including:

* The Heartland Institute

* The Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI)

* The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

Dear Orkneygal,

Please stop running away from the following questions and instead please finally answer them:

Isn't ICSC Chief Science Adviser Bob Carter committing de facto fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature data as flat? *

Isn't that like a global warming scam, a climate science hoax, an indefensible lie?

If you disagree again please provide a valid scientific rational to support ICSC's Bob Carter's deeply misleading misrepresentation of global warming temperature data over recent decades - thank you.

Also:

The ICSC's Bob Carter is also a founding leader of the "skeptical­" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/climate-change-impacts-water-resources_n_911152_101378826.html

[Orkneygal]

08:55 PM on 10/20/2011

Noted Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry of the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology in the USA now has a thread on her truth-friendly blog about the wonderful Donna Laframboise's new book. Donna's expose of the IPCC is an exciting contribution for the truth seekers. A snippet-

"....the book is not about the science of climate change. Rather, it is about the IPCC as an institution: the use of graduate students, WWF and Greenpeace sympathizers as IPCC authors; the use of gray environmentalist literature in IPCC (especially WG2); lack of conflict of interest oversight; the review process and the process producing the executive summaries; etc.

The book is well written with ample documentation... the “spoiled child” metaphor provides a readable narrative for her arguments about the IPCC Most....of this material I’ve seen before, but Laframboise’s narrative makes a clear and compelling case regarding problems with the IPCC.

...As a student of the IPCC since December 2009 (yes I was defending the IPCC until that point), I’ve looked at many of these issues myself. I’ve made some of the same points raised in this book......

“In the grown-up world, whenever important decisions and large amounts of money are involved conflict-of-interest mechanisms are firmly in place. . . well into the 21st century [the IPCC] saw no need to even discuss conflict-of-interest.""

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#more-5396

[gallon]

09:15 PM on 10/20/2011

Why are you flogging a book here? And merely perpheral title at that. Certainly not relevant to the science of climatology.

Have you finished up with that liver? May I recommend a roast of rump next. Do it up with carrots and mushrooms and onions in red wine. A long slow braise gives best results. It is to die for.

[Publicola]

09:37 PM on 10/20/2011

Orkneygal: "Noted Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry of the prestigiou­s Georgia Institute of Technology…"

Dr. Judith Curry…

You mean this Dr. Judith Curry?

"The IPCC [AR4] WGI report is a good summary of the overall state of the science"

-- Dr. Judith Curry, Oct. 2010

Why yes, you do.

[Maezeppa]

07:00 PM on 10/20/2011

Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data. Muller’s stated aims were simple. He and his team would scour and re-analyze the climate data, putting all their calculations and methods online. Skeptics cheered the effort. “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong,” wrote Anthony Watts, a blogger who has criticized the quality of the weather stations in the United Statse that provide temperature data. The Charles G. Koch Foundation even gave Muller’s project $150,000 — and the Koch brothers, recall, are hardly fans of mainstream climate science. So what are the end results? Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, to his surprise, the existing temperature data was“excellent.” He went on: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” And, today, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the team’s two-page summary flatly concludes, “Global warming is real.” http://www.berkeleyearth.org/resources.php

[gallon]

07:25 PM on 10/20/2011

Tony Watts has already gone public with his dispensation. He is calling this a PR stunt. And of course, legions of deniers will now also call this a PR stunt. Watch for them here on HuffPost.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/

[jimboy71]

07:35 PM on 10/20/2011

I left him a message asking him to comment about how UHI skews the data, and then asked him to recant...again.

Let's see if it makes it past moderation.

[Publicola]

10:25 PM on 10/20/2011

gallon: "Tony Watts has already gone public with his dispensati­on. He is calling this a PR stunt. And of course, legions of deniers will now also call this a PR stunt. Watch for them here on HuffPost."

Orkneygal (next response down):

"I can't believe you fell for this PR stunt Maezeppa."

Dham, gallon...

Your powers of prescience are impressive.

(Yeah I know: it was a very easy call. I'm impressed - and amused - nonetheless.)

[Orkneygal]

09:11 PM on 10/20/2011

I can't believe you fell for this PR stunt Maezeppa.

Which of these "flurry of new papers" has been through the peer review process and published in a scientific journal?

[gallon]

09:45 PM on 10/20/2011

Right on queue, here comes the first denier. There are four papers. They will be published when they make it through review. What about that is a stunt? That is exactly the wording Watts used. He called it a stunt too. Imagine that. Either you are getting your material from Watts, or he is getting his material from you. Neither of you has bothered to learn the science.

[Publicola]

10:16 PM on 10/20/2011

Orkneygal: "I can't believe you fell for this PR stunt Maezeppa."

lol..

Yeah man, none of the authors of any of those 4 papers has any credibility...

Including DR. JUDITH CURRY, who is a co-author of all of them!

/sarcasm

Dr. Judith Curry...

Where have I heard that name before...

Oh, right - just upthread, in a post authored by Orkneygal:

Orkneygal: "Noted Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry of the prestigiou­s Georgia Institute of Technology in the USA now has a thread on her truth-frie­ndly blog ..."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Orkneygal:

Got Cognitive Dissonance?

[Publicola]

01:24 PM on 10/20/2011

Orkneygal: "The world is as warm today as it was in the past when CO2 levels were lower. CO2 cannot be the earth's sole temperatur­­e regulator. There must be other factors that are beyond the control of humanity."

Dear Orkneygal,

You have spent considerable time and energy on HuffPo and elsewhere trying to convince readers who are unfamiliar with the basics of climate science that they should put their trust in you on the subject, despite the fact that your propaganda is not in agreement with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence or the concomitant scientific consensus.

If, after so much time and energy you have spent on this subject, you still do not understand that NO climate scientist has ever suggested, implied, stated, or believed that CO2 is "the earth's sole temperatur­­e regulator" and that AGW theory moreover stipulates otherwise, then you have again demonstrated that readers' trust in you would be misplaced due to your inexcusable ignorance on the subject.

If on the other hand you know that NO climate scientist has ever suggested, implied, stated, or believed that CO2 is or could be "the earth's sole temperatur­­e regulator" and that AGW theory moreover stipulates otherwise then you have again demonstrated that readers' trust in you would be misplaced due to your inexcusable mendacity.

You have again demonstrated inexcusable ignorance or mendacity with respect to climate science - which is it, Orkneygal?

[Publicola]

03:10 PM on 10/20/2011

Oxford Journals
--------------------------------------------

Denialism: What Is It and How Should Scientists Respond?

HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media...

All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus… Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action…

Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way...

The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies… Logical fallacies include... straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented to make it easier to refute…

Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs...

Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it.

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full