Eye popping Global Temperature visualization by Antti Lipponen (1900 - 2016), plus supporting info.

While too many scared scientists* seem to be watering down their reports and pronouncements regarding their findings, (To save themselves confrontations with the ruthless champions of climate science denial and hardball political disinformation, I imagine.), others are striving to bring today's global reality into stark focus.  

Antti Lipponen (from the Finnish Meteorological Institute ) has put together a visualization who's overall impact is astounding.  At least if you have the slightest empathy for people and appreciation of this planet's biosphere, as we've always known her.

Published on YouTube, Aug 2, 2017 by Carbon Brief

How has temperature changed in each country over the last century?
This data visualisation shows temperature anomaly – the departure from the long-term average – by country from 1900 to 2016. 

Visualisation by Antti Lipponen (@anttilip) of the Finnish Meteorological Institute based on GISTEMP data (CC BY 2.0).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* Why else would everyone at Project Midas continue ignoring my entreaties?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm having a dialogue with some smooth climate science contrarians over at the CFI forum which got me to thinking I should add this other simple video which explains where all that heat is coming from.  I specially liked this one because of its reminder of pioneering papers that turned out to be quite accurate about what was coming our way.

Roy Spencer's TPPI Mishmash of Myths, Nonsense and Fraud

Here's another Repost from SkepticalScience.com and Dana Nuccitelli, it was originally written for The Guardian and concerns the latest Dr. Roy Spencer broadside against serious climate science and the learning process.  

With much appreciation I'm taking advantage of SkS CreativeCommon's license and am reposting Dana's article because I believe Roy Spencer's crimes against science and our children's future demands to be exposed for what they are, fraud.  And that this information needs to be circulated and become common knowledge, please pass it on. 
(Monday morning - I've updated this post by adding on a list of links (and quotes) to further detailed examination of Spencer's dubious science and his even more dubious writings on the topic.)

These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.

Posted on 25 July 2016 by Dana Nuccitelli | SkepticalScience.com | The Guardian

When I give a presentation and mention the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming, I’m often asked, “what’s the deal with the other 3%?”. These are the publishing climate scientists who argue that something other than humans is responsible for the majority of global warming, although their explanations are often contradictory and don’t withstand scientific scrutiny.

A few months ago, the world’s largest private sector coal company went to court, made its best scientific case against the 97% expert consensus, and lost. One of coal’s expert witnesses was University of Alabama at Huntsville climate scientist Roy Spencer - a controversial figure who once compared those with whom he disagreed to Nazis, and has expressed his love for Fox News.

Last week, Spencer wrote a white paper for the Texas Public Policy Institute (TPPI) outlining the contrarian case against climate concerns. TPPI is part of the web of denial, having received substantial funding from both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, including $65,000 from ExxonMobil and at least $911,499 from Koch-related foundations since 1998, and over $3 million from “dark money” anonymizers Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.

Spencer’s arguments should of course be evaluated on their own merits, regardless of who commissioned them. However, it turns out that they have little merit on which to stand. The white paper is a classic example of a Gish Gallop – producing such a large volume of nonsense arguments that refuting all of them is too time-consuming. 

A mishmash of myths

Most of Spencer’s white paper consists of repeating a variety of long-debunked myths. It’s laid out in the form of 13 basic climate questions that Spencer tries to answer. Fortunately, SkepticalScience.com has a database of over 200 climate myths, and summaries of what the peer-reviewed scientific research says about each. This makes it possible to handle Spencer’s 13-point Gish Gallop by simply referring to the relevant myth rebuttals. So here we go:

Free Speech is no license for malicious fraud and slander!

I've been wanting to Repost this article since I first read it last week.  It's something that is long overdue.  The time has arrived to reaffirm our need to deal honestly with today's many challenges.  Free Speech is not a license to commit fraud through the agents of malicious slander nor by out-screaming and misrepresenting the science serious experts are trying to explain to our leaders and citizens.  

A publicity campaign ruthlessly bent on dumbing down our collective understanding of critically important issues deserves to be called criminal and prosecuted.  Why?  Because our leaders and citizens have the right, the need, to learn what serious competent scientists have been observing and learning about our planet and this climate system that we are absolutely depend on.

With a big thank you to Dana Nuccitelli, John Mashey, John Cook and the hard working volunteers at SkepticalScience.com I present:

Déjà vu: as with tobacco, the climate wars are going to court

Posted on 18 July 2016 by Dana Nuccitelli, John Mashey

http://www.skepticalscience.com/deja-vu-climate-wars-going-to-court-like-tobacco.html

Investigative journalism has uncovered a “web of denial” in which polluting industries pay “independent” groups to disseminate misinformation to the public and policymakers. The same groups and tactics were employed first by the tobacco industry, then fossil fuel companies. Big Tobacco has been to court and lost; now it’s Big Oil’s turn. Political leaders are choosing sides in this war.

Research by Inside Climate News revealed that Exxon did top notch climate science research in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which revealed the dangers its products posed via climate change. Soon thereafter, Exxon launched misinformation campaigns by funding “think tanks” and front groups to manufacture doubt about climate science and the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

Exxon wasn’t alone. Koch Industries, Peabody Energy, and other fossil companies have similarly funneled vast sums of money to these groups. ...

Debating sf9, considering difference between MWP and AGW

I have a bit of hyper-attention syndrome, so I let myself get side-tracked, such as with a fresh comment at a YouTube video of - Stephen Schneider talking to 52 Climate Change Skeptics [PART 3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzEHtYk8B8\.  which led me to reviewing the comments and finding this precious example of the contrarian mind in action.  I'll start with my comment made a couple years ago, then my new pal's response.  Then I'll follow with my usual collection of information for the interested student who wants to learn about these matters for themselves.

So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All

Study Undercuts Idea that 'Medieval Warm Period' was Global

The Medieval Climate Anomaly: A Myth Debunked

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Bob Ward thinks that Bob Carter has probably published the worst paper on climate change ever

Bob Carter Does his Business

Bob Carter's Financial Post Gish Gallop of Scientific Denial

Climate Myths as told by Bob Carter compared to what the science says.

_________________________________________________________

citizenschallengeYT 2 years ago

Regarding the end of this video

Her question about the reasons for "why we can't have a civil debate" and the hostile reactions of some.

Why not also ask:

Why is it considered OK to endlessly repackage and repeat misrepresentations of the science and Earth observations, up to and included lies?

Why should it be OK to ignore huge aspects of the known evidence?

Why should it be OK for an amateur's "science" to be given equal weight to an educated and seasoned expert (read: much examined and peer reviewed science?

__________________________________________

To which a character I'll refer to as sf9 writes: 

"Since mr citizen raises the qualification question, Bob Carter of James Cook University is a Marine Geologist has equal qualification as James Hansen (PhD in Physics) or David Suzuki (PhD in Zoology)  

regardless, Schneider denies volumes of evidence for global medieval warm period, still flogging the dead horse of the hockey stick , unprecedented fairy tale. There are hundreds of proxies from all over the planet that show medieval warming in excess of current temps."

______________________________________

For starters, don't know what my comment has to do with anyone's "qualifications", it was about the dishonestly and reprehensibility of people assuming the right to lie about what scientists are trying to teach us!

I notice sf9 offers no references to support his MWP claim and I suggest sf9 is about 20 years behind on paleoclimate understanding of the past ten millennium.

Scientists do have a good understanding of the various "natural variabilities" that influence weather, an ever so slightly dimming sun, volcanic activity, even the reforestation of the America during the 16th century Indian holocaust in North and South America, that resulting in massive reforestation and pulling massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere, played a role in the subsequent "LIA" - it's a complex dance between many known elements.

What sf9 is missing is that geophysically speaking, CO₂ is an atmospheric insulation medium and a major regulator of our Earth's heat holding capacity.  Period.  The science is settled on that one.  It really is that simple, no debate.

It is also settled reality that humanity, through its hydrocarbon driven modern marvels, has been injecting unimaginably massive quantities (of a geologic scale, even.) amounts of CO₂ and other "greenhouse gases" into our atmosphere.  

Will, this one's for you - What we knew a half century ago.

(Well that was one of the worst intros I've written in a while, let me try that again. - edited Nov 8th PM)

I read an article that fits right into my recent retrospective musings* regarding global warming and what we are willingly doing to our children's future.  

The key point:  

On 5 November, 1965, the group now known as the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) cautioned President Lyndon B. Johnson that continued accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from fossil-fuel burning would “almost certainly cause significant changes” and “could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.”

You see climate science contrarians I deal with continue pretending there's still substantial doubt regarding the fundamentals of what we are doing. Nonsense!  

The foundations of a clear understanding that society actually was conducting a global geophysical experiment go back over 60 years.  In fact, we recently passed one of the early big milestones of that growing recognition - which Dana Nuccitelli reports on. 

With thanks to SkepticalScience.com, here's something to think about next time some contrarian character tries telling you there's a lot of uncertainty regarding climate science and what injecting over two gigatons of greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere month, after month, after endless month will do.  

(Will, I gotta tell you, I sit slack jawed wondering, how can people so delude themselves that they trivialize this reality in favor of demanding to know the exact speed of our rush to catastrophe. Or waste precious time arguing total trivialities while ignoring the gorilla in the room.

Re. CAGW, if you think upending our planet's climate system isn't catastrophe on every level, you're lost within your own daydreams, oblivious to this Earth and the workings of this complex society you depend on but take oh so for granted.

Remember what environmentalists were saying back in those 'innocent' 60s: 

~ ~ ~ "You can kid yourself, but you can't fool mother nature!" ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  "No Deposit No Return Earth." ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

What a tragedy so few were paying attention.            

__________________________________

Scientists warned the US president about global warming 50 years ago today

Posted on 5 November 2015 by dana1981

Fifty years ago today, as the American Association for the Advancement of Science highlighted, US president Lyndon Johnson’s science advisory committee sent him a report entitled Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. The introduction to the report noted:

Pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air and the lead concentrations in ocean waters and human populations.

Learning from mistakes and replicating contrarian claims - recent study

Considering the developing theme over here is highlighting the fundamentally fictional, self-delusional nature of the Republican/libertarian mindset I've decided to reproduce the complete text of a recent study that attempted to replicate 38 of the most popular AGW contrarian go-to science papers. 

What the authors found is further evidence that the Republican/libertarian rejection of science is driven by a deeply held ideological, (if not religious), conviction that rejects objective evidence and down to earth logic.  

Since the paper has a CreativeCommons Copyright and there's too much in it I'd like to quote, I've decided to Repost the full text over here - after letting Dana Nuccitelli (one of the authors) give an introduction (taken from his August 25th, 2015 article in the UK Guardian.), enjoy and draw your own conclusions.

Dana Nuccitelli - The Guardian - August 25, 2015 

Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong. 

To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature? …   ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience )

_________________________________________________________

{I have taken the liberty of adding extra paragraph breaks for clarity and  highlighting what seems to me important sentences.}

Original Paper appeared in

Theoretical and Applied Climatology

First online: 20 August 2015 - pp 1-5

Learning from mistakes in climate research

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5/fulltext.html

10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook

Abstract

Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. 

An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. 

A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. 

Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere

Looks like a SkepticalScience.com double-header considering the noteworthy Guardian.com article by Dana Nuccitelli that SkS shared this morning.  The reason is that I know all too well that implying a grand conspiracy, denigrating scientists and the reactionary dismissal of the significance of a "97% consensus" among actual experts regarding the causes and dangers of society's relentless injection of atmospheric insulation (read greenhouse gases) are about all we can get out of climate science contrarians these days, so I thought this was a must article to add to this collection.

It's about a new study:  "Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial"

By Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, Scott Brophy, Elisabeth A. Lloyd, Michael Marriott

__________________________________________________

Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study

Posted on 8 July 2015 by dana1981

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-denial-linked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-recurrent-fury.html

A new study has examined the comments on climate science-denying blogs and found strong evidence of widespread conspiratorial thinking. The study looks at the comments made in response to a previous paper linking science denial and conspiracy theories.

Motivated rejection of science

Three years ago, social scientists Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac published a paper in the journal Psychological Science titled NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. 

The paper detailed the evidence the scientists found that, using survey data provided by visitors to climate blogs, those exhibiting conspiratorial thinking are more likely to be skeptical of scientists’ conclusions about vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change. This result was replicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same resultlinking conspiratorial thinking to climate denial.

Of course science denial and conspiracies go hand in hand

This shouldn’t be a terribly shocking result. When confronted with inconvenient science, those in denial often reject the evidence by accusing the experts of fraud or conspiracies. We saw a perfect example of this behavior just a few weeks ago. When scientists at NOAA published a paper finding that there was no ‘pause’ in global warming, one of the most common responses from those in denial involved the conspiratorial accusation that the scientists had somehow fudged the data at the behest of the Obama administration.

Nevertheless, nobody likes being characterized as a conspiracy theorist, and so those in the denial blogosphere reacted negatively to the research of Lewandowsky and colleagues. Ironically, many of the attacks on the study involved conspiratorial accusations, which simply provided more data for the social scientists to analyze. For example, the authors were accused of everything from faked data to collusion between Lewandowsky and the Australian government.

Dana at SkepticalScience.com reports on the Cornwall Alliance

Ironically, today SkepticalScience.com posted a most interesting article written by Dana Nuccitelli regarding the Cornwall Alliance and thanks to their generous Reposting policy I'm proud to add it to this little collection I'm putting together for those curious about this public relations effort called the Cornwall Alliance.

Global warming: a battle for evangelical Christian hearts and minds

Posted on 2 October 2014 by dana1981

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-battle-for-evangelical-hearts-and-minds.html

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation is a conservative evangelical Christian public policy group that promotes a free-market approach to protecting the environment. The organization recently published a list of ten reasons it opposes policies to reduce carbon pollution and slow global warming, purportedly to protect the poor. As the first point on the list illustrates, the group essentially believes that the Earth’s climatewill be able to correct any damage done by humans.

1. As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting.

The group includes climate scientist Roy Spencer and professor of geography David Legates. Spencer’s research is among the 2–3% of peer-reviewed climate papersdisputing that humans are the main cause of global warming. He has often argued that climate policies will harm the poor, and has not been shy in making political and free market statements, having gone as far as to make comments about “global warming Nazis.” Legates is known for disputing the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

The Cornwall Alliance has tried to use scientific arguments to support its religious beliefs about the resiliency of the global climate, claiming,

Global Warming Policy Foundation misleading the public

This seems like a timely SkepticalScience.com article to Repost.  Not much to add, except that if you've been immersed in the climate science "skeptics" echo-chamber, here's your change to learn about The Rest of The Story regarding "climate sensitivity". . .

With thanks to the John Cook and the other volunteers at Skeptical Science.com here's an article by Dana Nuccitelli. 

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 10 March 2014 by dana1981 The UK anti-climate policy advocacy group Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has published a report written by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok claiming “the IPCC hid the good news” regarding climate sensitivity…

---

Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated

I appreciate bringing this up while much of the nation is still in the grips of the coldest Arctic Blast in memory may seem weird, but remember we are talking "global warming" and that's never meant it would warm equally over the entire planet.  

Our weather is the product of a global network of circulating patterns in oceans and well as the atmosphere.  Our climate had reached a fairly stable equilibrium over the past ten thousand years.  What has changed is that society has been injecting ever greater quantities of Greenhouse Gases into our thin atmosphere, this in turn has been the equivalent of donning ever more sweaters on a warm day.  

This in turn has added more heat to our planet's virtually closed climate system.  Add heat and energy to a closed system and it will be energized to a higher activity state.  Of course, weather patterns are complex and we don't understand all the ways this higher energy state will manifest itself - but we can be sure those changes will damage a society that has never had to contend with non-stop extreme weather events, be they deep freezes or extended heat waves and drought conditions.

The illusion of a warming slow down examined

Now that I finished my previous post, I figure it's time to bring it back to the bottom-line.

A warming planet energizes weather systems, feeding them with more moisture and heat, inevitably producing wilder, more destructive extreme weather events of a wide variety.

Although Earth has always experienced periods of dramatic climate fluctuations, those transitions have always been destructive to the systems that developed under the older climate regime.  Meaning just because the Earth will adjust to whatever humans toss at it, those adjustments will take centuries to millennia and do little for the world we have come to know and love.  

We are playing for keeps.  

In the following article {which I Repost thanks to SkepticalScience.com's generous sharing policy} Dana Nuccitelli's gives an update of the latest scientific findings:

Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 10 December 2013 by dana1981 New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous…

---

The Other Dr.Mann Court Case

And since I'm on a roll {and because I allowed my original project for the day to be thoroughly side-tracked, by another denialist challenge over at SkepticForum} I may as well add one more SkepticalScience.com "Repost", this one written by Dana Nuccitelli, titled "Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse" - it looks at the other Dr. Mann court case.  

The case where Dr. Mann finally said, enough is enough.  And decided that the malicious slander the Competitive Enterprise Institute fabricated and that the National Review gave top billing to, in their ongoing campaign to befuddle and confuse the public, needed to be exposed and punished. (see here and here for updates from this past summer.)

Without further ado and with much thanks to Dana and John Cook and all the other volunteers who have made SkepticalScience.com the number one source for non-scientists to become familiar with climate science... as opposed to the misleading and distracting sound-bites our right-wing prefers, here it is:

Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 28 July 2012 by dana1981 At Skeptical Science, we prefer to stick to discussions of the scientific literature and body of evidence.  However, for the long time there has been a systematic abuse of climate scientists from climate denialists…

---

Climate Change Deniers Owe Us A (scientific) Explanation - a "REPOST"

This morning I came across this article by Graham Wayne, hot off the press as they say.  
To me it seems speak directly to the obstacles being erected between the public and grasping the important scientific issues of the Global Warming argument.  

It's ironic coming on the heals of my delving into the contrast between Professor Tsonis's public utterances and the substance of his scientific work (the two are definitely not the same) - also, considering that it revolves around the Dana Nuccitelli article I added to my previous post I've decided to reprint Wayne's entire essay under the permission of Graham Wayne's website's Creative Commons license and with special thanks to Graham Wayne.  {I have added some highlights}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A BLOG BY GRAHAM WAYNE  

Why climate change deniers owe us a (scientific) explanation

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013

Prof. Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)

Last week I wrote an open letter to Professor Tsonis, where he replied with the following

"I am not really sure who you are and what is your profession but it seems you have much more time in your hands to deal with all these issues than I do. You wrote to me and asked me questions. I answered them but obviously you did not understand my replies and asked more questions. I replied to your new request that I cannot continue an exchange of answers and questions for ever. I am dealing with a lot of people and I have a job to attend to. Now if you see this as an evasive action then you need to set back and relax.
All the best
Professor Anastasios Tsonis

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In reply I would say,

Professor Tsonis, it doesn't matter who I am, nor how much or little time I have at my disposal.

Furthermore professor, you most certainly did not answer my questions - instead you repeated the same old evasions and misdirection.

Thing is, a google search shows that you have been very active in trying to present a science fiction story that Earth as a planet has entered a cooling phase.

Your message flies in the face of known geophysical facts regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming.  It is in fact nothing more that a politically motivated attack on science and attempt to misinform and dumb down the public, when solid information is what they/we need the most. 

And it is about time you are taken to task for your misrepresentations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After my post a Steven B came to your defense in a sort of backhanded way, he wrote:

"It would be informative for you to have a look at Tsonis' own research (with various colleagues) pertinent to the discussion. He argues that he has identified a long-term cycle in the climate system (basically a periodic synching and unsynching of known shorter-term ocean cycles like ENSO) that would mean that we're in a hiatus that will last several decades.  

After that, there will be a price to pay as the warm part of the cycle combines with the inexorably increasing radiative imbalance to create a sharp warming spike. Then lather, rinse, repeat. ..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OK, so Steven does make a good suggestion and we should look at some of your papers.

My complaint with you is that your often repeated public pronouncements (as opposed to your studies) are taken to mean that society doesn't have to worry about AGW and that our leaders and public should instead continue on with a business as usual attitude as though we don't have a critical situation demanding our immediate attention and action. 

Following your papers and my comments.   
I am including a 'Repost' of SkepticalScience.com's recent article:

Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2013-akasofu-debunked.html

Admittedly, Akasofu's paper takes a different tack - Akasofu uses fancy statistical gamesmanship to rationalize that the current warming is merely a remnant of our planet "recovering" from the Little Ice Age.  But, it is also another example of creative science in a vacuum, where a limited number of considerations allow a disingenuous presenter to make unsupportable claims about the state of our climate.

The reason I'm reposting the Nuccitelli et al. (2013) article is because it spells out scientific clarifications that have a direct bearing on the issues you have learned to distortion and evade so well.

David Rose's latest myths courtesy of UK's "Mail"

I made a mistake in labeling Rupert Murdoch as owner of the Daily Mail and Sunday Mail.  It is the Rothermere clan that owns the Mail.  Although, their pedigree is as frightening as it gets - and it's no wonder they feel so comfortable misrepresenting serious science:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

It appears David Rose is at it again.  Here Peter Hadfield summarizes  the latest in a four minute video.  Following that I link to a few articles that detail the reporter's many recent deceptions.  It goes back to something I was complaining about in my previous post - the more overwhelmingly clear the science and Earth observations get, the more extreme and outlandish denialists claims are becoming.

David Rose's latest myth from the Mail on Sunday: Arctic ice has returned

Published by potholer54 on Sep 13, 2013 

Fox News: A driving force behind global warming denial

I know I single out Watt's and McIntyre's deceptions quite a bit, but let's not forget these people would be nothing without the PR megaphone afforded them by certain deep-pockets and some leading Republican oil-interest warriors, Senator Inhofe and Rep. Barton jump to mind.  The third leg of this massive con-job is the media, among the biggest players there is the Murdoch owned Fox Network and Wall Street Journal Op-Ed pages.  

Because of this - I found a recent SkepticalScience.com post worth adding to the collection over here at WUWTW.

At the end of the SkepticalScience.com post there's a link to the Guardian article it's based on.  Here's a hopeful piece of information from that longer article:

A growing number of American conservatives are demanding that the Republican Party stop denying the problem and begin participating in crafting the solution. For example, the list of conservatives supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax continues to grow: 

51 percent of registered RepublicansArt Laffer, economic advisor to Ronald Reagan
Greg Mankiw, economic advisor to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney
George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State
Gary Becker, Nobel Laureate in economics
Bob Inglis, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina
A staffer for a House RepublicanWilliam Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Nixon and Reagan
Lee Thomas, EPA Administrator under Reagan
William Reilly, EPA Administrator under George H.W. Bush
Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator under George W. Bush

Let's hope that list grows in a hurry.

{Thank you SkepticalScience.com for your generous Reposting policy!}

Fox News found to be a major driving force behind global warming denial (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 8 August 2013 by dana1981 A new study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science (PDF available here) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 Americans in 2008 and 2011 about their media consumption and beliefs…

---