Has Forbes become the rich guy's Mad Magazine?... with James Taylor playing Alfred E. Neuman?

James Taylor has written another one of his bizarre climate opinion pieces for Forbes Magazine.  Watts up with that anyways... I always heard Forbes was a decent magazine?

Still month after month I hear about, then read, this guy's off-the-wall, paranoia and conspiracy soaked stories.  

James' dislike for serious scientists is palpable.  

Worse he has no integrity, shamelessly spewing contrived nonsense that'd make any disinterested high school drop-out proud.

Taylor's obvious lack of understanding for our "global heat distribution engine" is appalling - In this blog I will try to confront his lies with videos that provide many basic primers to various aspects that Forbes' Taylor chooses to misrepresent.  Of course there's more to learn, but the resources are many - all that's require is the will and interest

I am reposting James Taylors' complete article in courier font my response will be in blue.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

OP/ED | 4/24/2013  |  James Taylor  |  Forbes Magazine

The Global Warmists' Last Line Of Defense: The Warming Must Be In The Bermuda Triangle

More examinations of the DailyMail's, David Rose's disingenuous stories

A collection of articles examining the claims by "news reporter" David Rose.

We'll start this collection with a post by the official Met Office blog,  followed by a few more interesting articles examining the logic of David Rose

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”. 

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. 

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997. 

For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data. 

“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections. 

“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record  for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”

Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun. 

It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).  In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

This week’s top six rebuttals to David Rose’s “warming has stopped” claim

Examining David Rose's "no warming" Daily Mail Stories

Spending time sparing with climate science skeptics, I've had to listen to folks who have uncritically accepted David Rose's claims and are repeating them as if they were holy writ, rather than the sensation seeking creations of a biased reporter's imagination.  A reporter who's more intent on selling himself and News copy then objectivity looking at the evidence.  

The saddest part is how these science distrusting believers are guilty of every intellectual dishonestly they keep accusing professional scientists of.

I will not to presume to present Rose's claims and theory so I've linked to two examples.  Read his articles with some objective skepticism and then consider his claims in light of what serious scientists have to say.  

To help with that I've reposted an article from the folks over at SkepticalScience.com where they do a point by point examination that describes the many flaws in David Rose's reasoning and disingenuous conclusions.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 20:12 EST, 12 January 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html
~ ~ ~
The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along   
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 18:37 EST, 16 March 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

Global Warming is Accelerating, but it's Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 17 April 2013 by Rob Painting Key Points Global warming has accelerated, however most of this warming (over 93%) has gone into the ocean - the Earth's largest heat reservoir. An important development has been the uprecedented warming of the deep ocean in recent years. Most of the remaining…

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Dear Skeptic: What issues should be debated?

Dear Society Driven Global Warming Skeptic: Can you outline the issues that need to be debated?

Of late, skeptics such as Dr. Spencer, Anthony Watts, Mr. McIntyre, etc... et al.

Have been displaying great indignation that genuine practicing scientists and other climate experts refuse to "debate" with them.

~ ~ ~

In traveling around the blogosphere I read comments from many sincere folks who mirror Mr. Watts' vocal and melodramatic indignation over at WattsUpWithThat.com.

Why Real Climate Scientists won't debate Internet Climate Science Skeptics

Yesterday we had a big time conservationist come to town to give a talk at our local college and since I knew there would be a bunch of "greenies" there, I decided to put together another issue of my sporadic ad hoc flier "The Memes Courier"  

I can't repeat the pretty formatting here, but I can share the text of side one.  Side two was a list of my favorite human forced global warming informational videos and video lectures... coming to citizenschallenge soon, and here, and here and here.

{#1} Anthony Watts is mad at Christian climatologist Dr. Hayhoe

I got side tracked on the way to writing this post. . . better late then never.

At the end of the post I have added a few videos of Dr. Katherine Hayhoe where she explains her work.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/27/i-get-the-heave-ho-from-hayhoe/

I get the heave-ho from Hayhoe

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Anthony Watts

Some climate scientists we know sure are notoriously thin skinned, as an illustration of this, today I got blocked by Dr. Katherine Hayhoe on Twitter after making my one and only Twitter comment to her. See below.Here’s the comment she made yesterday and my reply:

Dr. Hayhoe's response:  "I don't debate unless there's equal representation (49 pro-climate change scientist equals vs. 1 against."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Then Watts gleefully adds a few comments to underscore the "awfulness" of Dr. Hayhoe's stance.