#E) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (28-36 and fini)

“No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation”  (8/31/2017 - Investor's Business Daily at investors.com)Written by someone unwilling to put their name on this libelous cowardly act of defamation.

I have no idea who's behind Investor's Business Daily or this editorial, but I know fraud and libel when I see it.  I have spent the past few days dissecting this particular example of calumny crossing over into what seems to me felonious  criminal vandalism on Professor Mann’s professional reputation - not to mention we the citizen's right and need to honestly hear about what climate scientists are learning!

To spell out my case I have quoted the entire editorial in five chapters (nothing left out, nothing added) talking point by talking point, in chronological order, broken down into bite-sized chunks.  Here we examine the final Points of Contention 28 to 36, what can I say, there was more fodder here than the 24 points of contention I initially spotted.  Investors Business Daily quotes are in Courier font

Investor's Business Daily POC#28 - “In short, it's part of a long-term weather pattern — not climate change. 

_______________________________ 

Well yes, it’s part of a long-term climate pattern which gets reflected in the increasingly extreme weather unfolding before our eyes.  

Think of weather as the agent that transfers the broiling heat and atmospheric moisture of the tropics into the colder polar regions.  Increasing heat will increase the amount of energy and moisture weather patterns need to transport.  Quite simple.  Quite inevitable.

Incidentally, for the record, “climate change” is a result and tells us nothing.  Think physics, it’s “Global Warming” that is driving all these transitions.  Increasing heat, energy and atmospheric moisture is what’s changing our climate, along with the weather patterns that spawn out of this energized weather engine.  

Compounding interest working in the natural world.  Simple physics.

Investor’s Business wants us to ignore  

Part 3 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics

Alrightie then, time to get back to my debate with Will H the ClimateDepot acolyte.  I'll give him credit he held up a spirited debate in the comments of my first post, even if he did constantly repeat himself while steadfastly ignoring all the information I tried offering.  His next to last couple comments I held in moderation since I didn't have the time and I believed they deserved their own posts as I wrap up this particular debate. I'm splitting this comment into two because I'm using this opportunity to share the extensive outline of Professor Archer's excellent online lecture series explaining the fundamentals of global warming - "Global Warming - Understanding the Forecast" / University of Chicago.

Will H.  at 5:00 PM, Oct 26, 2015

Will wrote: "Concerning: "But you do realize both processes are at work? Right?" You already yourself posted an excerpt form a Wikipedia article which agrees with me. The warming of a real greenhouse is all explained by a convective greenhouse effect and not a radiative greenhouse effect. Experiments were performed near the beginning of the 20th century that showed that whether the glass passed or did not pass LWIR radiation did not effect the temperature in a greenhouse. There is no radiant greenhouse effect. "

______________________

Will won't grasp the fact that it is understanding our atmosphere's gases and their interactions with the sun's incoming radiation and outgoing infrared radiation - along with their impact on Earth's climate conditions - that's the critical issue.

He'd rather play gotcha with silly analogies that ignore real world interactions.  As for claiming "there is no radiant greenhouse effect", how in the world does Will think the sun's heat get's into the greenhouse to begin with?  

___________________________________________________

Will continued:  "I watched the videos concerning climate history. It is true that warmer climates coincide with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. It is well known that warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 so there is a reason for it." 

______________________

A fanciful combination of facts, but Will's implication underscores his disconnect from the real physics of the world out there.  Yes warmer water holds slightly less CO2, but our increasing atmospheric concentrations far outweighs the ocean's slight reduction in holding capacity.  It seems Will expects us to ignore that society is injecting over 2 gigatons month after month after month.  
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov
(Will is also lost when it comes to appreciating the difference between deep geologic time and the human societal time frames current AGW is occurring within.)    

Exhibit 3b: Lewandowsky responds to Betts critique re "Seepage" study.

For this exhibit #3b I'm reposting Prof Lewandowsky's response to Prof Betts (bio) prefaced by a comment and question I have for any takers.

What mystifies me to no end, is that although scientists thoroughly understand the physics of atmospheric greenhouses, the impression experts such as Professor Betts project is that until we achieve totally complete and absolutely correct measurements of every component of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine - we can somehow pretend greenhouse gases aren't doing their job 24/7/365 - specifically relentlessly increasing the heat and energy within our climate system.

What happened to our appreciation that the map is not the territory?

Can anyone explain how that rationale works?

______________________________

Voices from the climate community on "seepage"

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySeepageII.html

By Stephan Lewandowsky

Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol

Posted on 14 May 2015

Our recent article “Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community” in Global Environmental Change, authored by me and Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell, and Michael Smithson, has attracted a bit of attention over the last few days. I sample a few comments here and reply to a lengthy post by Richard Betts, Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area at the UK Met Office, that critiqued our paper.

A Critical Voice: Richard Betts on “seepage”

However, not unexpectedly, there are also some critical voices. We expected that our paper would evoke some spirited disagreement, and so Richard Betts’ critique of our paper is most welcome as it provides us with an opportunity to restate our argument and address some of the objections raised by Professor Betts. 

To facilitate discussion, I begin by noting that there is much in Betts’s post that we can agree with—for example, the increased role of social media, the increased focus by governments on the need for adaptation and hence decadal predictions. No disagreement there. But then again, none of those points pertain to the issue of seepage.

Discussion with Pete Ridley #3

At first I had intended to go through our longish email exchange and pick out highlights I wanted to discuss, but I'm over it.  Ridley's given me plenty of fodder in real time plus he's taken up enough of my time already.  Here we go with the third installment.  

This time I am not posting Ridley's complete 1400 words since, quite frankly, too much of it is confusing gobbledegook, to borrow his own term.  If you're into the slough check out his link below, see if you don't agree that Ridley seems conflicted and unsure if he wants to talk political shenanigans or science, although I'm getting the feeling it's all the same to him.

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

http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html?showComment=1404767773627#c6142771578776265384

Pete Ridley - July 7, 2014 14:16 PART 1 

What on earth gave you the idea that I wanted to Talk science here? My blog name gives the game away about my topic of interest – Global Political Shenanigans. Anyone deciding to read articles on this blog should recognise from its name that they are likely to encounter comments from politicians and political pundits like Christopher Booker, Matt Ridley, Nigel Lawson and his GWPF. {...} 

I did try to help you to find reliable sources of information about greenhouse gases to help you better understand the impact of atmospheric CO2. It seems to me that you need all the help that you can get. 

{...} “ .. It seems that the difference between thee and me is that I am searching for the truth about CACC while you are simply promoting your environmentalist agenda .. ”.

~ ~ ~

Yea, my agenda... like honestly learning about our Earth's geophysical processes.  What do you have against learning about our planet or being concerned about our biosphere's wellbeing?  

You do realize it's our life support system, don't you?

Incidentally, why shouldn't Earth have an advocate?