HOTWHOPPER does Dave Burton's sea level claims

As promised earlier here is a reposting of a recent article written by Sou over at HotWhopper.com.  In it she takes a closer look Dave Burton's statements and then clearly explains how he's manipulated facts to fabricate his lying talking points. 

_________________________________________________________

Dave Burton wants to level the seas at WUWT

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/04/dave-burton-wants-to-level-seas-at-wuwt.html

Over at WUWT, deniers are clutching at straws to continue to reject science in the face of all the "hottest evers". They really, really liked the last big El Nino in 1997-98, but they really, really dislike this current El Nino of 2015-16. It means they'll have to wait a while before they can start pointing to a drop in the surface temperature although Anthony Watts keeps jumping the gun and is excitedly telling his readers that a La Nina is just about here.

Here is some of what they got up to today, with a moan and lots of misdirection from a WUWT regular commenter called Dave Burton about another bane of deniers' existence - rising seas (archived here). But first, what's been happening...

TOPEX/JASON Sees 22-year Sea Level Rise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYqNU21FPo

NASA Climate Change

Published on Mar 9, 2016

This visualization shows total sea level change between 1992 and 2014, based on data collected from the TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and Jason-2 satellites. Blue regions are where sea level has gone down, and orange/red regions are where sea level has gone up. Since 1992, seas around the world have risen an average of nearly 3 inches. 

________________

It's not a trick - sea level rise is accelerating

Dave Burton is complaining about a NASA web page on sea level. The chart at the top on the right hand side is from satellite readings. Remember, deniers love satellites in areas where the readings are difficult and have wide error margins, like lower tropospheric temperature. They don't like satellite readings when the error margins are smaller and the results don't suit their purpose, like sea level change. Here is the chart Dave didn't like:

NASA also showed a chart of sea level derived from tide gauge analysis from John Church and Neil White of the CSIRO, and didn't put up a big sign saying what the trend was. What Dave Burton didn't point out and maybe didn't even see, was that the chart only showed data to 2000. (I don't know why there isn't a plot using the most recent data.) Anyway, Dave probably missed seeing that because he didn't read the label in big letters, and didn't look at the x axis which was from 1870 to 2000:

So there's an entire article at WUWT all complaining that there wasn't a little sign up the top of the tide gauge data (to 2000) when there was a little sign about the satellite record (to 2016). Dave Burton's whiny WUWT article starts off with this piece of conspiracy theorising:

NASA’s tricky sea level newsletter

Anthony Watts / 6 hours ago April 7, 2016

Dave Burton writes:

Those NASA guys are tricky.

Click the “Update: Sea level change / Ocean rising at 3.42 mm per year” link in their latest Newsletter and you’ll see the big, bold “3.42 mm/yr” near the top of the web page, and two very similar-looking graphs of sea-level: one from satellites, and one from tide stations.

Since only one rate of sea-level rise is shown, the casual observer is likely to think that the same 3.42 mm/yr rate applies to both graphs. Here’s a screenshot:

Under the chart, Dave Burton says to "Look closer at the scales, and do the arithmetic". Pity he didn't take his own advice. The rate of change of the top chart is the rate of change for the period from 1993 to 2016. The rate of change of the bottom chart, or what Dave said he estimated, was for the period from "the late 1920s" to 2000. Those are different periods. Dave wrote:

Since the late 1920s it shows a slope of about 1.8 mm/yr, with no evidence of acceleration. But those tricky NASA guys scaled it to look like the slope is about the same as the first graph. It’s pretty obvious why they didn’t show a rate of sea-level rise for that graph.

Dave Burton's tricks

Dave Burton ranks highly on the conspiracy theory meter thinking NASA is out to trick deniers who don't know how to read a chart. What about the data? What tricks is Dave Burton trying to pull? :D

From the late 1920s to 2000 or so, the slope is 1.8 mm/year. From 1993 to 2016 the rise has been 3.42 mm/year. That means Dave is wrong. There is evidence of acceleration.

While deniers like to claim that the rate of sea level rise hasn't increased, if you go by what Dave Burton is saying, he's accepting there has been an acceleration of sea level rise. It used to be less than 2 mm a year and now it's up to 3.42 mm a year.

The paper by Church and White (2006) used tide gauge data through to 2001, with the data downloadable from the CSIRO website. In that paper the authors look at the data in different ways. For example, because there is a slope change, they wrote that you could: "do linear regressions on the two halves (1870– 1935 and 1936 –2001) of the record. The slopes are 0.71 ± 0.40 and 1.84 ± 0.19 mm yr 1 respectively". That 1.84 mm / year is close enough to Dave's estimate though the periods are slightly different.

The other thing is that Dave complains about adjustments to the tide gauge data. He wrote:

What’s more, the second graph is not really just from tide gauge data; it’s from tide gauge data inflated by a +0.3 mm/yr GIA “adjustment,” to subtract off the rate by which the sinking ocean floor is hypothesized to reduce sea-level rise. 

He reckons that this is wrong and that "The real rate of coastal sea-level rise from averaged tide gauge measurements is only about 1.4-1.5 mm/yr (under six inches per century), and that rate hasn’t increased since the late 1920s." He quoted from the website of some denier who referred to a NOAA tide gauge website, which reported "the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year". That looks to be in need of an update. But more importantly, Dave saw fit to subtract the GIA adjustment from the NOAA data when it wasn't applied in the first place. He's a double adjuster.

There's sea level rise and there's sea level rise

There are at least two main reasons for people wanting to know about sea level rise:

• Coastal planning and management
• Monitoring global climate change

The thing is that for coastal planning, what people want to know is how much and how fast the sea will encroach on the coastline. They need to know the sea level relative to the local land. That will vary depending on where you are. The NASA website Dave was moaning about is for global climate change. (In case you missed it there's a big clue on the top left of the web page.) In that case the information needed is how fast are the oceans filling up? How quickly is ice melting. How quickly is the warmer water expanding? That's a different purpose and scientists need to have an indication of the change in the total volume of water in the world's oceans. That's why they allow for glacial isostatic adjustment.

Dave doesn't want to adjust the global tide or other sea level data to allow for glacial isostatic changes? What about barometric adjustments - does he approve of that? What about slippage where the tide gauge sinks or rises relative to the land surface? Does he want that adjusted for? Why doesn't he just pull a number out of the air and claim that the seas are falling? I think that probably what is happening, apart from Dave wanting to reject any and all climate science, is that he is mixing up the data and the purpose for which the data are used.

If he's concerned about the coast where he lives, then he'll need local information more than global. Different coastlines have markedly different rates of rising and sinking relative to the sea level. There's been a lot of research into what happens around the world.

On the other hand, John Church and Neil White were researching global change in their more recent 2011 paper (as in previous papers). In the introduction they explain:

Correctly estimating historical sea-level rise and representing global ocean heat uptake in climate models are both critical to projecting future climate change and its consequences. The largest uncertainty in projections of sea-level rise up to 2100 is the uncertainty in global mean sea level (GMSL) and thus improving estimates of GMSL rise (as well as regional variations in sea level) remains a high priority.

The fact that they were looking at global change, not local change, is why they allowed for glacial isostatic adjustment, and wrote:

Here, the ongoing response of the Earth to changes in surface loading following the last glacial maximum were removed from the tide-gauge records using the same estimate of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA; Davis and Mitrovica 1996; Milne et al. 2001) as in our earlier study (Church et al. 2004). 

John Church and Neil White know what they are doing. They tested for all sorts of things and added that they even tested for the impact of the changes in dam storage, writing:

We tested the impact of correcting the tide-gauge measurements for terrestrial loading and gravitational changes resulting from dam storage (Fiedler and Conrad 2010). For the large number of tide gauges used in the period of major dam building after 1950 (mostly over 200), the impact on global mean sea level is only about 0.05 mm year−1 (smaller than the 0.2 mm year−1 quoted by Fiedler and Conrad, which is for a different less globally-distributed set of gauges). Tests of similar corrections for changes in the mass stored in glaciers and ice caps, and the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets show that these effects have an even smaller impact on GMSL.

Glacial isostatic adjustment

If you're wondering about glacial isostatic adjustments, there's some information on the U Colorado sea level page. What it is is the mantle is still responding to the reduction in ice cover from around 20,000 years ago. Ice is heavy. When it melts, it means that some land surfaces pop up higher and the bottom of some oceans are falling relative to the Earth's centre. In other words, the oceans are getting bigger. If it wasn't for global warming, the sea level would be falling if there were no change in the actual volume of sea water. The CU Sea Level Research Group said in 2011 that "Including the GIA correction has the effect of increasing previous estimates of the global mean sea level rate by 0.3 mm/yr."

Meg Rosenburg submitted a video to the 2013 AGU student contest on the subject of glacial isostatic adjustment, which will give you some idea of the cause and effects:

AGU Student Video Contest: Rebound: An Earth Story 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7HP1jsoisE

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

Published on Jul 8, 2013

Submitted By: Margaret Rosenburg

Description: My submission is an education video about glacial isostatic adjustment, why we have glacial and interglacial periods, how we can reconstruct climate history, and how the Earth is responding to the retreat of the continental glaciers. I found that this topic brings together a lot of different areas of study relevant to AGU, from geophysics, to orbital mechanics, to geochemistry.

If you have the time, there are 17 videos from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level 80th Anniversary Workshop on Sea-Level Science, including one specifically on glacial isostatic adjustment, by Giorgio Spada.

How much has the volume of ocean water changed?

You can see the chart in Figure 1 up top to see how much the volume of water in the ocean has changed in recent years. On the CSIRO website there's a data update of Church and White (2011), which goes up to 2013 for tide gauges and 2014 for satellite (altimeter), and is plotted below. The data are available at different levels of detail. I've just plotted the annual data. The faint grey lines are the upper and lower error margins for the tide gauge data. I've added linear trend lines for different periods as shown in the legend and on the chart. (Hover over the chart to see more detail):

FOR THIS INTERACTIVE GRAPH LINK TO: 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/04/dave-burton-wants-to-level-seas-at-wuwt.html

It's obvious from the above that the rate of sea level rise has been increasing. However the CSIRO website has a caution and a reference to a workshop. I'm not sure what it means, but I'll copy it below:

We are currently attempting to more thoroughly evaluate the methodology and to improve the reconstruction so that it better represents the variability (Legresy et al., Workshop on Global and Regional Sea Level variability and change, Mallorca, Spain, June 2015).

Here is a video of an interview with John Church, at that workshop in Spain. 

SLR2015 Interviews: Dr. John Church

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJFXmLxqJ0

IMEDEA Divulga

Published on Nov 12, 2014

Dr John Church’s record in sea-level rise research, with CSIRO colleagues, the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, and international climate science agencies, has helped generate a new benchmark in understanding the science and issues of sea-level rise.

Dr Church is coordinating lead author of the Sea Level Change chapter of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. As the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organisation, Michel Jarraud, highlights in his foreword: 'The findings in this book will help set priorities for research and for observational activities over the next decade that will contribute to future assessments of the IPCC. In turn, improvements in these assessments will better inform governments, industry and society in their efforts to formulate sound mitigation an adaptation responses to rising greenhouse gas concentrations and sea level, and their economic and social consequences.'

More about sea level changes

As well as the videos I talked about earlier, there's the 2011 video with Jerry X. Mitrovica of Harvard, in which he addresses some of the false claims by fake sceptics. (He also says what many of us have found, that by investigating denier's claims, you can learn much.)

I recommend these two Mitrovica talks, fascinating and eye opening.

Postmodern Geophysics and Ice Age Climate

Published on May 14, 2014

Lecture given at Oregon State University on May 9, 2014 by Jerry X. Mitrovica

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oD3I7lYCRY

________________________________________________________________

In Search of Lost Time: Ancient Eclipses, Roman Fish Tanks and the Enigma of Global Sea Level Rise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdfTUdU9x-k

Distinctive Voices

Uploaded on Aug 17, 2010

What do ancient eclipse records kept by Babylonian, Chinese, Arabic and Greek

scholars, and fish tanks, built by wealthy Romans during100BC-100AD, contribute to our understanding of modern climate change? Dr. Jerry X. Mitrovica will describe the important role these archaeological treasures have played in the understanding of sea-level rise and how they help scientists both "fingerprint" sources of recent sea level changes and make more accurate projections of future sea levels.

Jerry X. Mitrovica, Ph.D., is a Professor of Geophysics in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, and the Director of the Earth Systems Evolution Program of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. 

"Climate Models: broken and unreliable" - You think? Check it out.

My "dialogue" with Lawyer continues.  Now she's displaying another favorite contrarian tactic - tossing out claims and quotes, then when I produce evidence and sources that explain 'the rest of the story' that puts said claim in a more realistic light, rather than acknowledging the new information, like an ADHD kid, she doesn't hear a thing instead busying herself with tossing more self-certain delusions into the ether.  Invariably these deflections consist of another know-nothing "authority," the latest being the satirist Delingpole that rabid writer and yet another demonstrable serial liar regarding actual science.

Lost in the flood of words Lawyer assured me that none of the climate models have accurately predicted anything.  Yet the truth of the matter is that many predictions have been made and come to fruition.  These predictions regard fundamental understanding.  Hello Lawyer, ignoring it, doesn't make the reality go away!

In any event, I want to share something Lawyer ignored.  It's an excellent summation put together by Professor Steve Easterbrook based on a talk given by Dr. Pierrehumbert.  He has given me permission to reprint his entire article unaltered.  

I thank Dr. Easterbrook and I hope this summary may come in handy for you.  Dr. Easterbrook assures me copying and sharing this information is A-okay, but please show both the courtesy of giving them credit.

Successful Predictions (AGU 2012 Tyndall Lecture)

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/12/successful-predictions-agu-2012-tyndall-lecture/

Steve Easterbrook  |  December 2012 · Categories: AGU fall meeting 2012

Last week I was at the 2012 AGU Fall Meeting. I plan to blog about many of the talks, but let me start with the Tyndall lecture given by Ray Pierrehumbert, on “Successful Predictions”. You can see the whole talk on youtube, so here I’ll try and give a shorter summary.

Ray’s talk spanned 120 years of research on climate change. The key message is that science is a long, slow process of discovery, in which theories (and their predictions) tend to emerge long before they can be tested. We often learn just as much from the predictions that turned out to be wrong as we do from those that were right. But successful predictions eventually form the body of knowledge that we can be sure about, not just because they were successful, but because they build up into a coherent explanation of multiple lines of evidence.

Here are the successful predictions:

Considering examples of Lewandowsky's "Seepage" at the MET Office.

A spectator's perspective

Recently a team of researchers published a paper titled "Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community" - it looks at examples of how the fabricated contrarian talking points are impacting the way scientists describe their work and even what they study. 

It caught my attention because I've long been interested in better understanding, why that increasing disconnect between what most people believe about global warming and the reality unfolding upon this planet?

It's like the more information is gathered and the deeper the details we focus on, the less we're accepting what's happening.

It has been obvious to me that the cause of much misunderstanding has been decades worth of deliberate effort.  Fabricated confusion by a plethora of politically motivated groups such as the Marshall Institute, CATO, Heartland Institute - organizations who make no bones about their "mission," which was/is a ruthless dedication to winning and holding on to their "free" market political/economic agenda.  

Read their literature nowhere does learning how our planet operates appear among their stated priorities.  Yet, they are calling the shots of what's supposed to be a public education dialogue about climate science.

How climate science denialists employ the "Serengeti Strategy"

Here's an informative post worth passing along, it's a good description of one of my pal Mr. Steele's main strategies, right up there with misrepresenting what scientists have actually written and said.  I tip my hat to SkepticalScience.com for making me aware of this article

Posted on 9 January 2015 by Guest Author Deirbre Fulton

Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist 
by Deirdre Fulton 
was originally posted on Common Dreams on Jan 6, 2015.

Michael Mann writes that the strategy 'is similar to what happens when a group of lions on the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable individual zebra at the edge of a herd.'

"The 'Serengeti strategy' is often employed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the world’s scientists about the underlying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts of DDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change," Mann writes. (Photo: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists/Brocken Inaglory)

Like lions targeting lone zebras in the Serengeti grasslands, industry-backed climate change deniers prefer to target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once, climatologist Michael Mann writes in a paper published this month in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

In "The Serengeti Strategy: How Special Interests Try to Intimidate Scientists, and How Best to Fight Back," Mann describes a concerted effort on the part of fossil fuel interests who find themselves facing overwhelming scientific consensus about the threat of human-caused climate change—and, by implication, the necessity to reduce global carbon emissions.

"By singling out a sole scientist, it is possible for the forces of 'anti-science' to bring many more resources to bear on one individual, exerting enormous pressure from multiple directions at once, making defense difficult," writes Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. "It is similar to what happens when a group of lions on the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable individual zebra at the edge of a herd."

Now I understand why climate science 'skeptics' hate SkepticalScience.com (+ climategate)

{edited for some typos, and to add two more investigation reports.  7/18/2013}


I've been reminded this afternoon why science-skeptics demonize "SkepticalScience.com" so viciously.  It's because the SkepticalScience team do such a great job of collecting and organizing real scientific information in a wonderfully simple and clean, accessible manner.  The occasion was a discussion over at http://www.debate.org.  The topic being "The Hockey Stick is Bad Science."  The actual debate was about a year ago, now it's down to the sparsely visited comments thread.  

I made a comment and the debate "contender" showed up to reply.  Unfortunately he dished up the usual denialist mantra I've come to know so well.  The sentence that inspires this post is:

"The Climategate e-mails showed a deliberate attempt to suppress skeptical viewpoints from ever being published."

When I hear someone inflating Climategate, like that, it's like a red flag - and I want to yell: "Stop and learn about what you're talking about!  Why can I be so absolute?  

Because, when one actually takes the time to familiarize themselves with all the claims based on those stolen emails, it comes down to maybe a half dozen short quotes, taken out of context, at that.  Most pathetic of all is that we are talking about personal, private emails, not data-sets or studies or actual publications.

Talking To Religious Fanatics... and Steven Goddard

Couple days ago I went looking for an update on the recent heat wave in Western USA, and I came across a blog by a character who goes by StevenGoddard, it's titled: Oklahoma Heatwave Update (July 2, 2013)

which reports that McAlester, OK had a cold record broken, in fact, by a whopping 6° below the 1995 record.  He does this in the spirit of ridiculing the standing Heat Wave that settled over the West this past weekend.  As if a few cold temperatures on the other side of that "unusually extreme standing wave pattern in the jet stream" negates the records caused by yet another freak weather system.

Climate Science Denial Books Linked To Conservative Think Tanks - G. Readfearn

This seemed like a most interesting article and one that is definitely worth adding to my collection of information that exposes the nature of the Climate Change Science Skeptics political underpinning.  This is important because understand what society has done to it's global heat distribution engine, requires a dedication to the principles of honest curiosity and an ethical pursuit of learning - rather than the denialist's total dedication to winning a preconceived goal.  

In their paper Dr. Riley Dunlap, of Oklahoma State University, and Associate Professor Peter Jacques, of the University of Central Florida have detailed facts and confirmed what many of have suspected.  Namely that "society caused global warming" denial is the strategic effort of a small group of well funded individuals who are divorced from the usual checks and balances of the real scientific process.

Graham Readfearn has written a good summation of the study at DeSmogBlog.com
and I thank DesmogBlog for making their article available for reposting.

Right Wing folk hero Lord Monckton thrown out of Doha climate talks

Ukip's Lord Monckton thrown out of Doha climate talks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/07/doha-climate-talks-ukip-lord-monckton

• Fiona Harvey in Doha
  

  • guardian.co.uk   Friday 7 December 2012 12.58 EST

  "... The former deputy leader of Ukip, Lord Monckton, has been ejected from the Doha climate change talks and permanently banned after impersonating a delegate from Burma on the conference floor.
  At one of the sessions, Monckton assumed the seat for Burma in place of the real delegate, and addressed the hall from his microphone. He spoke for nearly a minute, before being escorted out. 

  He was ejected from the conference centre, had his badge revoked, and is thought to have left the country. The UN later confirmed he had been permanently barred from future rounds of the talks. Monckton did not respond to requests for comment by the Guardian. 

  Monckton told the conference: "In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming at all. . ."

For those interesting in more information regarding Mr. Monckton may I recommend some further resources:

Ivar Giaever explains climate science = pseudoscience

There was a gent over at SkepticSociety forum who started a new thread with the title: "Ivar Giaever explains climate science = pseudoscience"

Giaever is one of the signies of the infamous Wall Street Journal letter, see here.  He's also a person who ignored a number of emails asking him for details regarding why he signed that letter.

The gent who posted these YouTube links didn't offer any comments for what he thought we should learn from these video.  Although he does tend to sound like he actually believes AGW is a hoax.  I tell you, it is one disappointingly juvenile speech and I would have loved surveying the learned audience's opinion of it.  If I could get the audience list, I would send them all emails and try to find out... anyone out there know how to get that list?

I listened to the first video, it was awful and I couldn't help mading notes with time signatures that I posted over at SkepticalSociety.  If I had the free time I'd clean it those notes, endure the rest of his speech and post an unauthorized review of it.  But, that's not happening. 

Fortunately, those archivers of climate science for the lay public SkepticalScience.com are on top of it again with this recent review of the long retired superconductor and solid state physics expert's talking points.  

So with the permission of SkepticalScience.com I proudly reprint another one of Dana's excellent posts.

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

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 12 July 2012 by dana1981 We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example.  As he admits in his own words…

James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong

 Since I'm already involved in a Hansen discussion thread over at the SkepticSociety's forum I found this recent post and the comments following another sad example of so-called "skeptics" ability to twist facts and avoid reality. 

James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong 

Posted on June 15, 2012 by Anthony Watts
"From their Die kalte Sonne website, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning put up this guest Post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) on Hansen’s 1988 forecast, and show that Hansen was and is, way off the mark. h/t to Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zone and WUWT reader tips.
{...}

Anthony, WattsUpWithThat Censoring of Comments?

Another irritating part of Anthony's blog is how he tries to come across like some fair minded person, yet his site constantly censors and bars folks who bring civil yet actually challenges.

Case in point being a rejected post by TC:

"The repeated attacks on Hansen's 1988 scenario blow the cover on most so called "skeptics". The fact of the matter is that it is very easy to check the gas concentrations used in Hansen's three scenarios: 
http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat

It is equally easy to check the current (2011) gas concentrations:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline

I've been way too busy to do much with this blog - But the outrages continue and I need to do something.  Fortunately, those folks at SkepticalScience.com are on the job and have made it possible for concerned citizens, such as myself, to borrow and share stories from their website.

And since this story fit’s right in with my theme of doing a little part in helping expose the dishonestly within the so-called global warming “skeptical” movement, or AGWHoaxers.  The following seemed like a perfect post to share.

~ ~ ~

A short digression. . .
{actually that turned into a long digression so I've decided to make it a stand alone post over here}. So with no further adieu the following is another example of the dirty tricks used by those wanting to deny the simple truths regarding society's grand atmospheric experiment . . .

Dear Heartland, Stop using Arthur Robinson's Trick to Hide the Incline (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 18 May 2012 by Mark Boslough Climate change is debated in letters to the editor of hometown newspapers all over the world.   In the Las Cruces, New Mexico, Sun-News, one reader recently cited "a 1996 paper by Kiegwin (sic) in Science which showed that, despite the present having a CO2 concentration…

Examing Dr. David Evans' misrepresentation of Ocean Warming

The following is another in depth examination of the misrepresentation AGW "skeptics," or should I say contrarians, use to cover up their lack of substance.  It comes courtesy of Rob Painting over at SkepticalScience.com and I'm sharing it here because it's the least I can do to help get this information out to anyone willing to pay attention to what's happening these days.  

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

David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise (via Skeptical Science)