Saturday, February 28, 2015

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. at SoD #2



Here's my last post regarding the denial games over at SoD.  I actually started with this review, but then Florifulgurator's comment came along and since it was much more interesting I took that digression.  Now I feel I still owe RD a rational accounting of Dr.LW's many fallacies since RD puts so much store in his spoof.
___________________________________________
The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof 
February 4, 2015 by ScienceofDoom

RD wrote on February 12, 2015 at 11:47am

The questions have appeared, as have two very thoughtful comments from L.W. Based on what he’s written, and your definition, and any additional concern you would have given because he’s Jewish, would you call him a climate change denier?
{...}
{CC: never did find any questions...}
RD wrote  February 12, 2015 at 3:54 pm
 ...    The questions have appeared, as have two very thoughtful comments from LW ...
This strikes me as a good question, because it’s precise. You’re responses have been very general. I’d like you to consider this very specific question. Thanks.
___________________________________

LW wrote: February 12, 2015 at 1:26 am
I started out conditionally accepting the AGW position because many experts claimed it was so. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And I started out learning about our planet's geophysics and its atmosphere...

For the more complete response see:
_______________________________
LW wrote: However, I am a scientist, and looked in far more detail before I would accept it fully. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The discussion is supposed to be about discussing those details, not about self anointed authority.
_______________________________
LW wrote: I do not deny the basic science as stated by SoD and others. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Words are cheap.
_______________________________
LW wrote: With me, the issue is how much the human burning of fossil fuel affects the net result, and what is the supporting evidence of consequences.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To understand any of that one must first understand our planet's CO2 cycle.  
As for supporting evidence, one must make the effort to become familiar with it, not hide from it.

~ ~ ~
IPCC Working Group 1, the physical basis
~ ~ ~
SkepticalScience.com explaining the science
~ ~ ~
The Carbon Cycle
~ ~ ~
The Global Carbon Cycle
University of Michigan

Linking rising CO2 levels to increased radiative forcing


Time for a short break from my virtual dialogue to do a reality check.  There's some interesting news that reflects on the continuing progress of climate scientists in refining their understanding.  It's about a new study who's title says it all. "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010" it documents in situ measurements of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect.

At first I was going to post highlights and a link, but it's such an interesting story there's nothing I want to cut out, or could add, except for highlights.  With a call to Dan Krotz to double check, and a tip of the hat to Seth Borenstein, I'm happy to reproduce the Berkeley Lab's news release in it's entirety.
____________________________________

Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations

Berkley Labs News Center | Dan Krotz  |  February 25, 2015

Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature (2/25/15).

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.


Friday, February 27, 2015

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. at SoD #1


I'm home alone and have been musing so instead of finishing my review of L.W.'s much commended comments, a reread had me turning my response
 to his opening gambit into a full length editorial of sorts.
___________________________________________________________
The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof
__________________________________________ 
L.W. wrote February 12, 2015 at 1:26 am:I started out conditionally accepting the AGW position because many experts claimed it was so. 
~ ~ ~
Well there's the first mistake.  How about this:  

I started out learning about our Earth in high school (early 1970s) science classes, that led to the atmosphere, which inevitably led to learning about AGW.  The instructors with their text books (consensus) laid out the fundamentals of our atmosphere and how greenhouse gases behave.  That is, by allowing short-wave ultra-violet rays enter and warm Earth's surface and then catching the outflowing long-wave infrared rays.  Or more accurately slowing down their escape.

We also learned about the incredible amounts of fossil fuels our society (we) were burning.  This stuff was/is increasing our atmosphere's Heat Retention Ability.  That extra CO2, plain and simple was going to warm our planet.  Like putting on extra layers of clothing when you're already comfortable.  Simple down to Earth logic!

This atmospheric property doesn't turn on and off at will.  So when an incredibly complex  globally (actually, excluding polar regions) averaged surface temperature data set jogs up and down or stays down a little longer than most expected, I understood the place to look was within natural and manmade variability, and the measurements. not in pretending that the physics of greenhouse gases had gone on a vacation so that global warming could go on a "hiatus".  

Think about it, there is a big difference between the warming water in a kettle and our ability to measure the temp. profile of said steaming kettle. 

Considering the defensive offense at SoD, (R.D.)

One reason I'd have made a lousy scientist is that I get easily distracted, it's such a big fascinating world out there.  In any event, my Florifulgurator post was actually an offshoot of my review of one L.W.'s "highly recommended" comments.  Here's another offshoot of that since RD brings up a point of etiquette.

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof
__________________________________________
RD wrote  February 13, 2015 at 7:04 am:

     cc wrote: If that’s the best you have for a “question” I’m sorely disappointed.
You were expecting something good from me then? Where did that expectation come from? You’ve given me the impression only of having complete contempt for me. Am I wrong? Did you have some previous experience with me that was positive? I’ll single out, if I may, my latest question, lightly edited. I don’t know when it came out of moderation and therefore when you may have seen it.     The questions have appeared, as have two very   thoughtful comments from L.W. ...
This strikes me as a good question, because it’s precise. You’re responses have been very general. I’d like you to consider this very specific question. Thanks.
        _____________________________________________________

I didn't know RD from Adam, I was commenting on his words, the ideas he was sharing.  Rather than responding to my comments RD played the offended victim card.  I know it all too well, it's a rather typical defensive strategy (right up there with sarcastic dismissal) that deflects attention away from bankrupt arguments and affords an easy escape from considering the substance of the dialogue.

What ever happened to honest curiosity, grappling over the issues themselves, striving to understand what's being discussed on both sides?

What's wrong with being told: "you're 'wrong' and here and here is why I believe you are mistaken!"  Then slink off to examine and think about the here and here.  It's nothing personal.  It's about the desire to learn and understand, even to take learning from mistakes in stride.  Our egos, mighty important though they are, shouldn't supersede our honest desire to understand the world around us and our place in it.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Peter Miesler Helps Expose WUWT Homogenization Insanity, USHCN #2



Although I've been temporarily diverted from my Steele climate science horror story project, I haven't forgotten about it.  For instance, responding to Steele's outlandish Jan 7th WattUpWithThat post claiming to "expose USHCN Homogenization insanity" I had promised more information, but there are only so many hours in a day.

Fortunately, today there were a couple posts over at SkepticalScience.com that give an excellent review of this topic.  In one Dr. Kevin Cowtan, a bona fide expert in the field explains weather station calibration adjustments, the why and how they're done along with comparing adjusted to unadjusted data.  

The second "bulletin inventories rebuttals to two recent articles by Christopher Booker published in the UK's Daily Telegraph claiming that climate scientists have nefariously manipulated temperature data in order to propagate the "myth of manmade climate change".

With thanks to SkepticalScience.com I'll check this off my list and let Dr. Cowtan and John Hartz take it from here:
____________________________________________

Updated 3/27/2015 with this addition from  Variable-Variability.blogspot.com

Two new reviews of the homogenization methods used to remove non-climatic changes

Two new reviews of the homogenization methods used to remove non-climatic changes
By coincidence this week two initiatives have been launched to review the methods to remove non-climatic changes from temperature data. One initiative was launched by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK free-market think tank. The other by the Task Team on Homogenization (TT-HOM) of the Commission for Climatology (CCl) of the World meteorological organization (WMO). Disclosure: I chair the TT-HOM. 
The WMO is one of the oldest international organizations and has meteorological and hydrological services in almost all countries of the world as its members. The international exchange of weather data has always been important for understanding the weather and to make weather predictions. Its main role is to provide guidance and define standards to make collaboration easier. The CCl coordinates climate research, especially when it comes to data measured by the national weather services.  
The review on homogenization, which the TT-HOM will write, is thus mainly aimed at helping national weather services produce better quality datasets to study climate change. This will allow the weather services to provide better climate services to help their nations adapt to climate change.

Homogenization 
Homogenization is necessary because much has happened in the world between the French and the industrial revolution, two world wars, the rise and the fall of communism, and the start of the internet age. Inevitably many changes have occurred in climate monitoring practices. Many global datasets start in 1880, the year toilet paper was invented in the USA and 3 decades before the T-Ford. 
As a consequence, the instruments used to measure temperature have changed, the screens to protect the sensors from the weather have changed and the surrounding of the stations has often been changed and stations have been moved in response. These non-climatic changes in temperature have to be removed as well as possible to make more accurate assessments of how much the world has warmed.  
Removing such non-climatic changes is called homogenization. For the land surface temperature measured at meteorological stations, homogenization is normally performed using relative statistical homogenizing methods. Here a station is compared to its neighbours. If the neighbour is sufficiently nearby, both stations should show about the same climatic changes. Strong jumps or gradual increases happening at only one of the stations indicate a non-climatic change. 
If there is a bias in the trend, statistical homogenization can reduce it. How well trend biases can be removed depends on the density of the network. In industrialised countries a large part of the bias can be removed for the last century. In developing countries and in earlier times removing biases is more difficult and a large part may remain. Because many governments unfortunately limit the exchange of climate data, also the global temperature collections can only remove a part of the trend biases.

Some differences

____________________________________________
Telegraph {and Jim Steele} wrong again on temperature adjustments
Posted on 24 February 2015 by Kevin Cowtan

There has been a vigorous discussion of weather station calibration adjustments in the media over the past few weeks. While these adjustments don't have a big effect on the global temperature record, they are needed to obtain consistent local records from equipment which has changed over time. 

Despite this, the Telegraph has produced two highly misleading stories {that are bouncing around the echo-chamber} about the station adjustments, the second including the demonstrably false claim that they are responsible for the recent rapid warming of the Arctic.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

"Denying denial at Science of Doom #1c Flori's comments" only links

____________________________________________
Summary of key points:

Why trust scientists?
CO2 saturation?
Political leaders and public's right to learn without malicious interference!

Serious science is not about "tolerance of diversity" 
Science is about pinning down the facts as well as possible
and always learning. 

Good prima facie evidence?
Syria, conflict and drought?
Do full bellies dictate a people's sense of wellbeing and satisfaction?

It's not about relying "only on what others are telling us."   
It's about trusting a huge community of experts 
who keep each other honest !

Moral "equivalence" and coming catastrophe.
What is Catastrophic Climate Change?
________________________


Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists
Richard Alley: Who says CO2 heats things up?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An Essay Concerning Our Weather 1995
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"EXPOSED - The RealClimate.org's "McKitrick and McIntyre" Files"
~ ~ ~
Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends
 Nature by Jochem Marotzke and Piers Forster
~ ~ ~
1956 American Scientist Gilbert Plass article explores AGW
~ ~ ~
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
~ ~ ~

"Denying denial at Science of Doom #1b Flori's comments" condensed version

The condensed version of
Questions for SoD plus other observations.  


The following still isn't for the faint of heart and though I've cut out a third of my origin version only a serious student of "Republic/libertarian attack on science tactics" will find it interesting.  I cut out all the fat I could and got it down to main points and links, though I can see I need to make a third version with links only.

I've undertaken this project because Science of Doom's shockingly naive "The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof" article, along with its following 'smoking guns' comments thread, provided an excellent vehicle for my struggle to grasp the proclivity of humans to lie to themselves about Earth sciences.  
{...}

The issue is the public's right to honestly learn about our planet's geophysics and 
what climate scientists and Earth scientists have learned!
_________________________________________________

The following gets a bit complicated so here's an introduction.

Prelude: SoD wrote a blog post bemoaning the use of the term "climate science denialist" because there are also "Holocaust Deniers" and he feels that's worse than denying geophysical facts; or dishonestly interfering with scientists' ability to teach our leaders and the public.  

SoD also makes a vague argument implying: 'we still don't know enough to make certain conclusions about basic global warming physics' - such as the cascading consequences of injecting 500 gigatons of extra manmade greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere, in a geologic blink.
The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof
Posted February 4, 2015 by scienceofdoom
____________________________________________________________


{...}
“Smear by association” ? No. ...

Monday, February 23, 2015

Denying denial at Science of Doom #1 Florifulgurator's comments

(As usual I've been doing some touch up editing, 2/24 evening.)

Questions for SoD plus other observations, including links to further resources
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following is not for the faint of heart, only the serious student of the Republic/libertarian attack on science tactics will find it interesting.  Though it includes a large collection of links to useful resources for further learning.

I've undertaken this project because Science of Doom's shockingly naive "The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof" article, along with its following 'smoking guns' comments thread, provided an excellent vehicle for my struggle to grasp the proclivity of humans to lie to themselves.

During the crossfire of comments one man's offerings stood out.  Florifulgurator recognized the scope of SoD's blindspot and made a good effort to explain some realities that SoD hadn't taken into consideration. 

I was disappointed to watch SoD deftly sidestep Flori's critique and instructive thought-challenges with sarcasm.  I had expected more from SoD, and am starting to think his awareness doesn't extend beyond mathematics and dog-chasing-tail collegiate debates. That won't do.

Not when the issue is the public's right to honestly learn about our planet's geophysics and what climate scientists and Earth scientists have learned!



and another one stripped down to only the links (1c)
_________________________________________________

The following gets a bit complicated so here's an introduction.

Prelude: SoD wrote a blog post bemoaning the use of the term "climate science denialist" because there are also "Holocaust Deniers" and he feels that's worse than denying geophysical facts; or dishonestly interfering with scientists' ability to teach our leaders and the public.  

SoD also makes a vague argument implying: 'we still don't know enough to make certain conclusions about basic global warming physics' - such as the cascading consequences of injecting 500 gigatons of extra manmade greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere, in a geologic blink.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Profiles in climate science denialism, David Rose the yellow journalist


The folly at Science of Doom's denying AGW denial thread keeps building, and now a regular commenter has added climate science denier extraordinary David "AGW is Hoax" Rose the reporter from the UK Daily Mail tabloid into the mix.  Here's what he writes:

Although only a sporadic lurker on this blog I couldn’t agree more Paul. ...
{With nearly 80 comments in this SoD thread, hate to think what happens when he's a regular.}
"... Because that sleepy Sunday morning I’d just read this piece by a well-known Jewish journalist in London called David Rose. I’d recommend every remaining lurker on this thread to do the same. For along with the d-word come some very ugly words and thoughts indeed, at least if you put your head above the parapet to the extent David has in the UK."
~ ~ ~
"Well known" "journalist" Rose may be, although notorious yellow journalism expert is closer to the mark.  What I can't comprehend is why doesn't it matter to RD and his "sceptical" crowd, (or SoD for that matter), that David Rose has been shown to be guilty of malicious misrepresentation of established facts and broadcaster of slanderous lies on numerous occasions. 

Here's another recent blog defense at "Breitbart's blog," Donna Edmunds started a February 3rd article with this splendid rendition of David Rose the victim, rather than the predator that he is:

"David Rose is a journalist who sometimes writes about the grey areas within the climate change debate. As a result, he has already endured calls for his own children to murder him, been compared to Hitler despite being Jewish, and had his personal contact details published on Twitter. ..."
~ ~ ~
And so the Republican/libertarian echo-chamber goes.  Without that fabricated foundation of lies they have nothing to defend.  Then they wonder why some call them Denialists!

For instance to claim that Mr. Rose writes about the "grey areas" of climate science is a bald faced lie!  Mr. Rose has been denying the most fundamental of contemporary geophysical facts, fabricating lies in order to deny that our planet has kept right on warming and that this warming is caused by our greenhouse gases that we and our society are injecting into our thin atmosphere (and oceans).   
2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record
Worst, no matter how many times David Rose is given learning opportunities by experts who actually understand these matters, or scientists he's misrepresented, he ignores them all, in order to stick to his malicious, some call it treasonous, "Hey, it's all good, AGW is a hoax" storyline.  

But, do any members of the Republican/libertarian community care that Rose's news stories are based on lies and misrepresentations???  
Does SoD care?  

I have collected a list of articles and responses, that share various details of Mr. Rose's many frauds against the public's interest to be allowed to honestly learn about climate science and how we know we're impacting our life supporting Earth.

Professor Micha Tomkiewicz's thoughts on "Denial"

While wrestling with composing a concise point by point critique of SoD's naive The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof article and comments thread I had a chance to communicate with Florifulgator (link{who made a couple of excellent observations that SoD deftly avoided with sarcasm.  Interesting, considering avoidance is a characteristic of denial}.  He pointed me towards Professor Tomkiewicz's blog ClimateChangeFork, in particular his first post from nearly three years ago where the professor considers this very controversy.  

Dr. Tomkiewicz is in a unique position and offers an authoritative assessment that belongs in any discussion looking at climate science denial vs. Holocaust denial, so I figured it would be a good addition to my collection of hopefully thought provoking information. 

I thank Prof. Tomkiewicz for permission to reprint his essay, I've placed his introduction at the end of the main course.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  
by Professor Micha Tomkiewicz, PhD.
Climate Change and the Holocaust

{I've added highlights and links to supporting information.}

“Deniers.”

The term itself triggers angry responses and, recently, it’s been used in a tumultuous series of climate change opinion pieces, responses and blog posts – now numbering in the hundreds –

Friday, February 20, 2015

An Essay Concerning Our Weather

I've been temporarily distracted from my Steele's Climate Horror Stories project by Science of Doom's naive excursion into social/political commentary.  While working on my next post which looks at some of the comments over at SoD I was reminded of an article I wrote for the 1995 November/December issue of the Humanist Magazine which was followed by a slightly edited version Nov/Dec 2005 which I'm reprinting here since I've been wanting to do so for a long time and I'll be referring to it in my next post.

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“Katrina and Rita in Context”

Printed in The Humanist,  Nov-Dec, 2005 issue 






There has been something missing from the recent news coverage in the aftermath of 
Hurricanes Katrina's and Rita. No one seems to be reporting on the real story ~ namely the 
weather.

 

These most recent storms should encourage U.S. citizens to recognize that we are facing a 
powerful entity that has only begun to barge into our American way. Look up into that 
beautiful sky overhead and consider its substance, dynamics and might. Our atmosphere is 
the product of more than four billion years of ongoing evolution ~ geological as well as 
biological. It's a tenuous veil of gases that lays upon the surface of our earth, thin as 
the finest silk upon your skin. This veil has a most interesting structure, one that's 
worth thinking about.



Saturday, February 14, 2015

Denial games at ScienceofDoom


One of the few websites I recommend at this blog is Science of Doom.com 
(Correction, The more I thought about his words the more he seemed willfully duplicitous, 
February 25th I finally deleted my link to SoD )
because it's done an impressive job of getting into the nitty gritty of the physics of greenhouse gases.  I'll admit I don't actively keep up on it, since I don't pretend to be able comprehend the deeper physics and higher math any better than 99% of the other commenters on the state of the climate science "debate".  That's why we have a community of well trained very smart experts who have devoted their lives to understanding it.  You know, recognition of one's limitations is as important as developing one's strengths.

I any event, I was shocked by SoD's recent bizarre departure into social commentary.  In it he belittles folks who dare apply the term "denier" to people who lie about what climate scientists have been learning.  I think Pekka Piril√§ summed it up best in his 2/14/15/ (9:53am) comment:
"I see the real issue in the acceptance of the diversity of people."
"Words are, however, just the tip of the iceberg, the more general issue of tolerance of diversity is really the core."
To me, he underscored SoD's blindspot, which I want to bring to light.  
First off, serious science isn't about "tolerance of diversity", it's about pinning down the facts as well as possible.  
Secondly, making a career out of lying about what climatologist are learning isn't about "tolerance of diversity" - as the Republican/libertarian PR machine want's us to believe - it's about fraud!  
A fraud that deserves the label "climate science denial."

______________________________________________________
{This is a slightly expanded version of the comment I shared with SoD.  Sadly I know he's deeply offended, which unfortunately tends to mean that he won't try to consider a thing I wrote.  Another sad commentary on the state of human dialogue these days.  Maybe someone else can find a gentler way to reframe these thoughts.}

You know SoD, I’ll admit, first time I read through your post – I got all caught up with the comments section. Since then RD got me to revisit W’s cartoon comment, which got me to reread your original article. Seems my first read-through was superficial, biased by my high regard for you, (earned by some of your fine posts explaining the physics of greenhouse gases). I now appreciate that in my focus on various comments I overlooked much in your words and thoughts worth taking issue with. 
So now I have a few questions for you SoD.

______________________________________________________
SoD writes: “Everyone knows what this (Denier) word means. It means people who are apologists for those evil jackbooted thugs who carried the swastika and cheered as they sent six million people to their execution.”
– – –
Who says?  By what right?  Unidirectional skepticism equals denial – period. Whether it’s about a historical atrocity or lying about the critically important lessons climate scientists have to teach us.

The Holocaust doesn’t own the “D” word, nor does it have a corner on the dreadful sin of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence! What’s repulsive is the Republican/libertarian machine highjacking the Holocaust to fabricate yet another counter-productive distraction.

Monday, February 9, 2015

LandscapesAndCycles blinded by belief - The straight poop on penguins indeed ¶1/6

{touch up edits completed}

The following post reviews the first six paragraphs of an essay written by Mr. Jim Steele: "Blinded by Beliefs:TheStraightPoopOnEmperorPenguins."  The essay grossly misrepresents scientific studies and observations; while unjustly slandering honorable trustworthy scientists.  My intention is to outline it's many errors as rationally as possible, while presenting links to many authoritative sources that offer independent learning opportunities to help you decide.





~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LandscapesAndCycles' childish opening shot intentionally trivializes the situation, 
after all penguins have been acclimatized to those harsh weather conditions
and that environment, its food-web, and its seasonal rhythms 
since time immemorial  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

landscapesandcycles.net/resilient-emperor-penguin.html

Blinded by Beliefs: The Straight Poop on Emperor Penguins
  July 1, 2014 {I've added the red highlights}

Adapted from the chapter The Emperor Penguin Has No Clothes in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism by Jim Steele  
{The essay's text is in courier font) 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The essay starts out by constructing a phony, but dramatic, stage setting.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
¶1  "Two recent press releases concerning the Emperor Penguin’s fate illustrate contrasting forces that will either advance or suppress trustworthy conservation science."
~ ~ ~ 
Think about what's been done with these words.  They artfully imply that there's a struggle going on between a cadre of biased untrustworthy closed minded ('environmentalist'?) scientists and "trustworthy" scientists.  It's pure innuendo with malicious intent, based on misrepresentation, misdirection and ignoring huge swaths of available information.  

Making judgements based on media stories is dishonest.  A serious discussion demands we go to first-hand sources instead of relying on political theater.  Doing so reveals a community of individuals dedicated to learning and understanding.  It is alive with constructive skepticism and honest debate.  With the full scope of available evidence informing the collective state of understanding.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Embodying that truism is a paper by lead author Dr. Michelle LaRue who reports new advances in reading the Emperor Penguin’s fecal stains on Antarctic sea ice that are visible in satellite pictures. Two years ago the fecal stain method identified several large, hitherto unknown colonies and nearly doubled our estimate of the world’s Emperor Penguins.1,2 
That didn’t mean climate change had necessarily increased penguin numbers, but a larger more robust population meant Emperor Penguins were far more resilient to any form of change.
~ ~ ~
"far more resilient to any form of change."  Nonsense, the study makes no claims about resilience to "any form of change."  

In fact, the LaRue et. al study was about a pioneering method utilizing high resolution satellite imagery to gather a more complete and accurate population count on a continent wide scale.  Dr. LaRue does indeed acknowledge the many developing environmental threats facing penguins.   

What the study means is that some population counts and assumptions need reassessment, but it says nothing about penguin resilience; or the threats they face because of their changing landscape.  Nor does it have anything to say about the 70s population decline around Dumont d’Urville.  Here's what the study actually says {my highlights}: