When it comes to the discussion of climate science, Huffington Post began the New Year with a bang meriting diatribes and dissection as a case study in global warming denier truthiness. While Harold Ambler's Mr Gore: Apology Accepted merits a solid 100 on The Inhofe Scale for its deception, perhaps it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out some reasonable sources for actual knowledge when it comes to Global Warming science and discussion. Here are some thoughts about places to go for Global Warming / Climate Change information and discussion:
Real Climate: A source to studied and footnoted discussions of significant climate issues, with substantive examination (and, most frequently, substantive rebuttal) of "denier" and "skeptic" work. Heavily scientific but accessible to a broader audience.
Climate.ORG provides a very useful set of annotated links to top soruces on key aspects of climate science.
Grist: How to talk to a Skeptic: This useful compendium provides facts and responses to many "standard" global warming skeptic truthiness statements. These have many links to the science reporting and data that demonstrate the 'truthiness' behind the skeptics' statements. (See Climate Denial for discussions of "the psychology of climate change denial" And, DeSmogBlog, which could be "de place for Global Warming De-nial de-construction and de-molition". And, here is a pdf version of the UK Royal Society's "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change".)
Good 'learn more' sites include:
Please feel free to make suggestions in the comments and worthwhile sites for knowledge (and not deception) about global warming and climate change science and discussion will be added to this list.
NOTE: For a discussion of Ambler's misleading post, see: HuffPost scores a 10 on the Inhofe Scale. See, as well, Ambler huffs and puffs, but mostly he just blows for a fact-filled refutation of many of Ambler's points.
http://icecap.us/index.php
A key turning point for me was when I read realclimate's take on the debate, and saw how they so unsatisfactorily responded to McIntyre's critiques. Their primary strategy, as it turned out, was to try to discredit the critic, rather than meaningfully respond to their criticisms. That told me that they have something to hide.
For the past couple of years, I have watched how realclimate has systematically silenced (by refusing to post) comments from those who challenge their orthodoxy. This is not a site of legitimate scientific discussion, but about promoting their particular viewpoint.
On the other hand, climateaudit.org willingly takes on all challengers. The only reason your comment gets deleted is if you stray from scientific discussion, into the realm of policy. I suggest that anyone who wants to have a legitimate encounter with scientific debate should visit there instead.
realclimate: An open discussion fostered by a group of highly-credentialed PhD climate scientists with tremendous contribution to the peer-reviewed scientific literature in a broad area of natural sciences.
climateaudit: run by a former mining exec who makes shrill slanderous claims about other scientists while obsessively pushing an anti-global warming political agenda.. Those claims surpass in quantity his contribution to the field.
For years I noticed a relative balance in the media between stories covering global warming and stories questioning global warming. I soon realized that the same small group of detractors with any credentials were being recycled repeatedly by those media sources. In addition, the quality of their arguments were very poor and politically motivated (see hockey stick "controversy") and highly exaggerated.
What you interpret as slanderous claims are actually careful examinations of the science behind the published papers of the "PhD climate scientists." Steve McIntyre does also spend a lot of time ranting about the refusal of those same scientists to release their data and methods so that they can be subject to public review. It is the "PhD climate scientists" at realclimate.org who are the worst offenders for keeping their data to themselves so that no one can actually verify whether what they are saying is valid.
If you had read it also, you would also know that Steve McIntyre does not claim anywhere that global warming is not man-made.
Also, if you had read it, you would know that he vigorously excludes any discussion of political policy or agenda. If you dare post a comment about policy, rather than science, it is snipped faster than can blink.
You don't need to agree with it, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, please read the blog before you spew your nonsense here.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tls_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle00grl.pdf
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.txt
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/YEARLY
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119987971/abstract
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6
I guess I didn't realize my comments were so inflammatory, but I would argue that we've all been misled and those of us who recognize this are becoming upset. We must all look objectively at the evidence and ask, "Is doing something really better than doing nothing?"
New Scientist and Guardian are, evidently, "political proganda websites"?
What absurdity for you to argue that there is not "any credible evidence". That is going well beyond any reasonable definition of skeptic.
What you state is not true ... point blank. Come back with something more than vitriol.
"I cannot believe something that is not true" and 'am unwilling to look at any site or organization or data that doesn't already agree with me and reinforce my own beliefs' ... You are sipmly asserting falsehoods ...
For not much more than just vitriol, page down.
You stated that Ambler's post "merits a solid 100 on The Inhofe Scale for its deception." Perhaps you could list the deceptive comments one by one and give a proof source (other than Al Gore said) to disprove his comments. Thanks. I'll be awaiting your reply.
Dash
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/01/05/huffpost-scores-a-10-on-the-inhofe-scale/
Evidence of this can be found on Venus..'' but not so far here on earth! co2 controls the night temp when water vapor is absent, true or false? clear nights make a perfect model then for this discussion, true or false? do you really need a link for that? and has any clear night anywhere on earth warmed up commensurate with the keeling curve? or warmed up at all? adding more co2 has NOT changed the temp here on earth or it would have shown up through the warming of clear nights, and it hasn't. clear nights are still cold clear nights by anyone's observation anywhere on earth. do you really need a link for that too? getting any of this onevoice? (crickets)
false - heat energy in land mass (or ocean) controls the temps on clear nights significantly, however in different environments I would think CO2 may be trump (ie cold environments).
false- because of above
Would a warming dry clear night point to desert growth? Are the worlds deserts, in general getting bigger or smaller?
Oh you say it is some other function contributing to their growth?
Show me evidence, global evidence that the clear dry nights are not warming.
thanks.
1. There is a global conspiracy of the world's leading scientific institutions, their scientists, and their staffs to distort the science in pursuit of "another agenda"?
2. What determines seriousness is your impression of actions by 'celebrity' individuals? If enough environmental leaders swear off planes and take trains, that will do it for you? Or, will you then argue that they should be on inter-city buses, since that is an even more efficient transport system? And, if they are on buses, will you assert that they should ride bikes? And, does it matter if they are people who believe in and advocate for the power of technological (and other) solution paths (whether energy efficiency, new tranport options, renewable power, biochar, otherwise)?
What a load of ...
If they are backing down that we make it "warm" that's pretty big.
Unfortunately I do not see how any of your facts are true
1- Hockeystick, some flaws, but with updated measurements still looks the same
2- Global Cooling since 1998 - This is not true, only some hack scientists have stated this
3- Polar ice caps levels in 70- This refers to both ice caps. Artic is much smaller, Antartic has grown by 1% but is far thinner. Mass of ICE is much less than in '79
4- You guys have run things for the last 8 years, and what do we have for it, 2 wars, a destroyed economy, high jobless rate , etc, etc, etc. It is our turn now. It will be interesting (and painful I am sure) to watch you spin real growth and real progress into a negative.
1. Both the statistical methodology used to create the Hockey Stick, and the bristlecone pine tree ring proxy which formed its first principal component have been thoroughly discredited (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322). The reason that updated reconstructions still look the same is that they continue to rely upon the bristlecone proxy.
2. Any reputable scientist or statistician will tell you that the validity of any trending analysis depends upon your starting and stopping points. While it is true that 1998 was the warmest year in the instrumental record and should not therefore be used as a starting point for a trendline, it is also true that there have been no statistically significant increases in global temperature since that time. In fact 2007 and 2008 have exhibited distinct declines, though it is too early to assess whether this is a significant trend or not. It is also true that global temperature has failed to track increases in CO2 concentrations for the past decade.
3. The antarctic ice cap has grown and in 2008 reached an historic high (within the period of record) in terms of its total ice mass. While the world's media has focused on the West Antarctica peninsula where some melting has occurred, the majority land mass of the continent has been accumulated ice in proportions that far outweigh those losses.
4. I agree that the past 8 years have been disastrous, though I see very few signs that Obama will be bringing about any significant change.
Hmmm ... "Cooling since 1998"? Why would it be that this decade (2000-2009) will almost certainly be the hottest decade on record in 2000 years if we are on such a cooling trend? (http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/ ) Yes, 1998 was a hot (very hot) year, it was a spike year in terms of heating due to Global Warming and the warm phase period of the natural El Niño — La Niña cycle. This is about "climate change" and one year does not establish/make the "climate". Take a look at running average rather than single year and your "cooling since 1998" disinformation stands out clearly. http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers/
Of course, we should simply ignore the National Academy of Science, Royal Society, AGU, APS, etc, etc, etc since all of those prestigious scientists are purveying "bogus science" ...
In addition, taking steps to mitigate global warming are among the smartest things we can do not 'environmentally', but economically. Energy Efficiency: a no brainer as the US is the least efficient modern nation in terms of energy use. Across the board, we can take steps to save energy at lower costs than it takes to produce it. Reduced dependency on oil will improve the balance of trade. Improved health via reduced pollution loads. Etc ...
#1 http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#2 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
#3 http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/skeptic-arguments.html
They delve more deeply into the science too.
'sketicalscience' and 'logicalscience' are extremely good at this, which is why the uninformed are so easily convinced.
Realclimate, as I have noted elsewhere, succeeds by controlling the debate, rather than engaging in it.
People need to read both sides of the debate with an open and honest mind, rather than relying upon those who are out to "debunk the denialists."
Let me make some reading suggestions:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://climatesci.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
When reading these, be prepared for careful scientific engagement. You may not agree with everything that is said. But if you wish to be intellectually honest in this discussion, you cannot avoid reading these. Leave the fluff to skepticalscience.
Watts (uncertified TV weather reporter), for instance, compares temperature anomalies as if they were raw values and pushes any dubious story he can find that he thinks might dispute AGW.
Spencer (also a creationist and in regular communication with Rush Limbaugh) manages a dataset of satellite records that have been revised upwards from showing no trend to a significant warming trend. It's a shame folks still take him seriously.
I enjoy a broad spectrum of differing opinions, and don't even mind a little spin here and there. It sharpens my critical thinking skills. But even the (to me) weirdest opinions should be based on a modicum of reason and, you know, "facts". Harold Amblers offering failed the smell-test within the first two paragraphs.
First I thought, well this must be some sort of satire, but I couldn't detect even a whiff of irony. This guy was actualy trying to sell me the Golden Gate Bridge!
Like I said, I'd like to know how this nonsens found its way onto the Huffington Post. It really makes me go "hmmmm..."
I find a lot of ridiculing of 'Global Warming' on these blogs which is coming from the British documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle." People use the content from that movie almost verbatim--this 'documentary' is not based on sound science and the creator's reputation is not respectable. Wikipedia has a comprehensive breakdown and analysis of the points people usually bring up to rebuff the concept. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
or go to wikipedia.org and seargh for the title. Very useful material.
See details. It shows how the Right Wing outright lies and distorts
The real global warming swindle
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html
I suggest we call the phenomenon "Global Climate Disruption" instead of "Global Warming." The word 'warming' really confuses people who haven't explored the issue very deeply.
First of all, the graph is question is not the Hockey Stick graph.
Secondly, the article conflates two separate points of criticism. Durkin's admission that there were errors that were corrected before the second transmission of the program referred to the graph of solar activity. However, most of the article pertains to a graph of the temperature history, which was not quite to the liking of the films critics, but differed in only minor ways from the "official" NASA graphs.
What is glaringly absent is any refutation of the core issues raised by the film. All of the criticism has been directed at a few peripheral issues. It's not that getting the peripheral issues correct is not important. But it is intellectually dishonest to claim that because a few points were wrong, that the whole film is "riddled with distortions and errors."
one ~ the heat that the greenhouse effect traps comes primarily from forested or deforested areas?
and two ~ why will more co2 cause more global warming when it's effect is not linear?
at New Scientist magazine's Climate Change Guide for the Perplexed
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
At the top of these corporate hierarchies are the most paranoid, reactionary, fundamentalist Republicans, who own and control the majority stock in those industries, appoint the boards that hire the CEOs and direct the PR campaigns to push the stories that smear Obama, always blame democrats and create fear of change. With that power they can stack legal and judiciary systems at all levels, manipulate elections to install their foot soldiers and reward and punish media by both direct control over employment and by placing or pulling advertisements.
Obviously they are not all-powerful, as we see by the election of Obama and much positive media. But why do about half of Americans still believe that global warming is not happening, or is mostly natural, or science is not sure about it, or it would be too expensive to address?
It's time to address the economic and cultural power of the multinational corporations, including the notion of corporate "personhood" and to review regulatory frameworks at all levels of government. This is the work that must be accomplished before any progressive policies, from health care to global warming, can be enacted.
Scientist who disagree that humans cause global warming are get zero funding, silenced, and their offices taken away. Sounds dreamy.
cant wait to read the Ambler dissection post....
Be sure and read the COUNTER view of the Ambler post - -which was filled with outright lies of known scientific facts, from my perspective !