Thursday, March 3, 2016

(1) Profiles in Malicious Deception - 1000frolly

February 16th I posted "A Study in Miscommunication - Increasing Antarctic Ice Extent (is No) Mystery!" in which I describe the failings of a NASAGoddard video who's omission riddled and inept communication does more to confuse than clarify.

A couple days after my post I discovered that YouTube's 1000frolly had gotten to the video a few weeks before me and used it's unfortunate omissions as a platform for driving home his argument that CO2 science is a hoax and that scientists are clueless shills.

Now it's my turn to unpack 1000frolly's malicious fraud.  To do that I needed to transcribe his video which was a pain.  His surly condescension dripping delivery made the YouTube transcript near worthless and the listening increasingly irritating, but finish it I did.  I intersperse 1000frolly's words with reality checks, and links to supporting evidence for my claims.  (I've done my best to accurately reproduce his words, if you find errors, let me know, I'll correct them.)

What's frustrating is that this will do no good.  The Republican/libertarian driven PR campaign is founded on anger and a conviction that malicious tactical lies are part of their Free Speech Right. 

I recall the American standards that we used to strive for, honesty, honor and decency.  Civility to opponents, fair-play, all this seems to have become irrelevant.  But, it shouldn't be.  Though it seems like talking to bricks in a wall, the future demands we keep trying.

NASA - The "Mystery" of Antarctic Cooling
Published on Jan 25, 2016  |  1000frolly  |  30:04 painful minutes long

NASA scientists Walt Meier and Nathan Kurtz are baffled by the "Mystery" of just why the Antarctic simply refuses to warm.

Instead, it's been cooling for decades!
Their CO2-driven computer models insist that it has to be warming!
It must be! After all; The Science is "Settled" - isn't it?

This is the "Mystery of Antarctica"!
The "Canary in the Coal Mine"!
I will explain just why the Antarctic refuses to warm, and why this means that the Enhanced Carbon Dioxide hypothesis (CAGW) 
has to be thrown out.

Frolly starts with a clip from the video, I'll share the whole thing, it's short.  The terrible omission and poor followup starts around 1:10 min.  Although previous to that, notice melting glaciers are never mentioned.  Why leave that out?  

NASA | The Arctic and the Antarctic Respond in Opposite Ways 
NASA Goddard | 10/7/14 

1:55  -  1000frolly says: Listen to the dogma,
In reality climate scientists are always rechecking and refining results and considering all legitimate evidence and challenges.  
The established facts carry the day!

What are these guys saying, these supposed scientists. 
He admits that the Antarctic is cooling and yet he said "Ah that doesn't refute global warming."  -  Hey, hello, how can you have global warming, when the globe is not warming?  Only part of it is warming. 
Hey, HELLO! 
Antarctica = 5.4 million square miles; Earth=197 million square miles; 
Antarctica = 2.7% of the globe.  Hello?

Then the dripping venom, "Supposed" scientists, in his head.  In reality these are experts and people of real responsibility, who have established good reputations among their colleagues on account of their solid work.  

Frolly's sniping from the side lines sounds more like some drop-out ridiculing the professors who were stuck grading the tests he flunked. 

Besides being a lie, it exemplifies that political need to demean and cheapen responsible professionals who are recognized experts in their field.  It's another hallmark of the Republican/libertarian PR agents ruthless disinterest in the substance of what we are trying to talking about.  Winning their game is their only concern.  {How are you going to deal with that?}

It's also indicative of an inability to recognize their own limitations. 

2:10  -  That's just a red flag to anyone who believes in real science.  This is pseudo-science, it's cargo cult science, Feynman warned about this, how not to fool yourselves, these guys need to watch that. 
Feynman certainly did warn us about pseudo-science, it would be nice if frolly actually listened to what Feynman had to say:

Red flag, for what? 
That there was more to learn about Antarctica?

That newly discovered geophysical mysteries can be systematically studied and resolved?  

Frolly ignores that as serious scientists continued studying all aspects of Antarctica an interesting story of cascading consequences has emerged:

*  The Ozone Hole has actually created a significant reduction in that area's atmospheric insulation.  
*  Thus heat escapes more readily through said "hole" in the atmosphere, over that already coldest region of Earth.  
*  Thus extreme cooling on the Arctic continent/ice sheet results in even more frigid katabatic winds racing downhill towards the
*  Ocean who's waters are warmer and producing much more water vapor than in past millennia.
*  Add to that ancient glaciers sliding into the ocean, melting, thus "freshening" regional ocean waters,
*  raising the freezing point, enabling faster ice formation...
*  more wind breaking up ice...
*  colder winds sweeping over that newly exposed freshened ocean water . . .
. . . behold extreme growth in the maximum extent of seasonal winter sea ice extent.

Oh, and why never stop long enough to consider the profound difference between seasonal sea ice and millennia old glacial ice, 
that is currently calving into the oceans like never before in human history?

They gotta have a bit of integrity and not push this CO2 nonsense, to when it's obviously failed. (2:37) I mean the hypothesis is tripe, it's been disproven in a dozen different ways.
"Integrity,... CO2 nonsense" - now there's an oxymoron.
Where has the greenhouse gas hypothesis obviously failed?
It takes more than arm waving.

Seems to me such claims once again cross a line onto the territory of malicious mischief, and if we can't do anything about it, we ought to at least recognize it for what it is. 

Malicious. Involving malice; characterized by wicked or mischievous motives or intentions. An act done maliciously is one that is wrongful and performed willfully or intentionally, and without legal justification. 

Our planet's geophysics are not like human gods shifting at a people's whim.  They are solid and consistent and open to investigation by the clever.

The notion that greenhouse gases act as atmospheric insulation has been intensely investigated, it is two hundred years worth of mature and accomplished science in every sense of the word, and we have the modern marvels to prove it!  

CO2 tripe, indeed.  
Asserting such a patent lie, isn't about "free speech" -  it's nothing more than malicious fraud with intent to deny the peoples' right to honesty understand what the scientific evidence is telling us.  

Or to look at it another way, it is the malicious vandalism of the intellectual property (scientific findings, papers and such) - 
and we ought to at least start calling it what it is.  

As for "CO2 science", take a look at the background, 
guess who perfected the details:

Senator Inhofe your "Global Warming Hoax" is a hoax !

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab

2:45  -  It's very interesting that these two dogmatists work for NASA at the Goddard Space Agency.  Now notice that, Obama stripped NASA of all its space flight money and pumped it full of climate change CO2 money.  
Here again, that addiction to theatrics and contrived falsehoods that saturate the air with emotional hostility towards his target.  We're supposed to be focused on learning what's happening.

Lets be clear, under "CO2 money" frolly includes Earth and weather observation programs, as though we aren't supposed to be studying our planet.  Take a look:  

NASA's Earth Observing System Project Science Office

NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS) is a coordinated series of polar-orbiting and low inclination satellites for long-term global observations of the land surface, biosphere, solid Earth, atmosphere, and oceans. As a major component of the Earth Science Division of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, EOS enables an improved understanding of the Earth as an integrated system. The EOS Project Science Office (EOSPSO) is committed to bringing program information and resources to the Earth science research community and the general public alike.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A large number of satellites is used today to explore the earth's atmosphere, the oceans, the earth's structure and the biosphere. Satellites employ a large variety of instruments and techniques from remote sensing and inverse problems to monitor and visualize physical, chemical and biological processes taking place above, in or on the surface of our planet earth.

The smug dismissal of learning about our planet and how we are altering its life sustaining systems is astounding, and horrifying in what it tells us about the collective oblivion towards our life sustaining planet.  How is anything constructive possible with such locked up minds?

As for frolly demonizing Obama for the cutbacks, in a time of increasing budgetary restraint, with many pressures working on the President, this sort of over simplistic, broad strokes are the stuff of cheap barroom talk.  The reality is always more complicated.

Space policy of the Barack Obama administration

Speaking to our fundamental failure to grasp what we are dealing with:
Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?

If you want to remain as a scientist, at all, in NASA you basically have to start pumping out this CO2 tripe.  You have to adhere to the dogma, otherwise your mortgage doesn't get paid, your kids school fees don't get paid, you're outta work, you're out of work simple as that.  
Oh lordie what theatrics, tugging at the heart strings.  No evidence is produced, none needed, they are satisfied with cheap barroom banter.  

Crazy Beliefs, Sane Believers: Toward a Cognitive Psychology of Conspiracy Ideation
Volume 39.1, January/February 2015
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The involvement of conspiracist ideation in science denial
Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol
Posted on 5 February 2013

What about the malicious dirty tricks, gross lies and fabricated narratives, that have made life miserable for all sorts of honorable professionals and responsible scientists?  Think Katharine HayhoeStephen  Schneider; Ben Santer; James Hansen; Phil Jones; Michael  Mann; Andrew Dessler (to name but the most prominent).

3:30  -  So they are doing all kinds of summersaults to explain how the Antarctic is cooling and the Arctic is warming, how come they are going in opposite directions when All the CO2 hypothesis and all the models predict that the Arctic and the Antarctic must both be warming at the same time.
No summersaults.  
Here again, notice the dependence on portraying scientists as clueless fools.  It's an age-old tactic to coverup one's own lack of substance.   

All it takes is honest curiosity and desire to learn about the system!  

In reality these maligned scientists are actually very sharp people who allow the best evidence to dictate their opinions.  

Climate warming 'seesaws' between the poles  
Michael Hopkin  |  November 8, 2006

3:45  -  which is not happening no matter how much they bullshit you.
 so they're deluded
they call it Antarctic mystery.  
More deliberate deception.

Solving the polar climate conundrum

Genevieve Wanucha | Oceans at MIT | August 22, 2014
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Arctic melts, but oceans and ozone hole may cool Antarctica
Professor John Marshall  |  June 6, 2014

In a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society journal we lay out a framework for the response of polar environments to the effects of human-induced changes to the climate. 

The predominant factors are the ever-increasing concentration of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere and the ozone hole over Antarctica caused by an abundance of chlorofluorocarbons, which peaked at the turn of the century and are now slowly diminishing.

On account of its ability to absorb and transport enormous amounts of heat, the ocean also plays an outsized role in climate change and is an important factor in the explaining the asymmetric response of the north and south poles to the changing climate. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But to the main opposing hypothesis, to the CO2 nonsense. that is specifically "cosmoclimatology".   There's no mystery at all, in fact cosmoclimatology predicts this very scenario it's a prediction of cosmic climatology Antarctic will cool and when the Arctic warms and visa versa.
That's rich. 
"Cosmoclimatology" controlling Earth's weather.   

When I googled it I found that the Institute of Creation Research has a long description.  Alrightie then, let's get this straight, the folks who believe Earth is six thousand years old endorse this cosmic controls climate hypothesis.  

Why am I not impressed?

Then I found what an actual climatologist has to say about it.  It turned out much more informative and interesting, here are some tidbits.  It's worth taking the time to read all of it. (I added highlights)

 ‘Cosmoclimatology’ – tired old arguments in new clothes

There are a number of issues which really make the A&G paper poor in my view. One is the neglect in addressing old criticisms of the hypothesis ...

“Condensation nuclei of some sort are always present in the atmosphere in ample numbers: clouds form whenever there are vertical air motions and sufficient moisture”. The CCN tend to consist of mineral dust, sea salt, or sulphur-based matter. ...

The irony is that Svensmark ignores (in addition to the lack of trend in GCR) the fact that the night-time temperature has risen faster than the day-time temperature, ...

Svensmark must have adjusted the cloud data too. ...

In the laboratory experiment ‘SKY’, UV-light was modulated to mimic the variations in the Sun, but it is not clear whether the effects observed due to changes in the UV are transferable to GCR.... So, what about the larger aerosols which play a role in cloud formation? ...

I would expect the albedo effect presented by clouds to be weak over the mostly snow/ice covered Antarctica, but Svensmark argues that the clouds here warm rather than cool the temperature. This claim is not quantified. Is he suggesting some GHG-effect kicking in during the Antarctic winters? Is the sense/chronology of causation really determined? 

What about temperature affecting the cloudiness (e.g. advection of mild and moist air), and the role of circulation patterns? For sure, there is no simple one-way relationship. I think that the A&G article is bit too cavalier about the complexity involved in the atmospheric processes. The cavalier attitude seems to be a trademark of cosmoclimatology. ...

It is possible that GCRs do have an effect on climate through the modulation of clouds, but I don’t think it is very strong. I also think that Svensmark’s claims are wildly exaggerated, but most of my objection lies in the way the arguments have been presented in this A&G article. I have the impression that the A&G article comes from the same school as “The Skeptical Environmentalist“, which also has been criticised for cherry picking references to make mere speculation appear as more solidly founded. 

To ignore aspects that don’t fit the hypothesis is definitely not science. Neither is adjusting data so to provide a good fit without a solid and convincing justification. Science, however, means objectivity, transparency, repeatability, and in principle the possibility of falsification. Furthermore, it is only a lack of respect for the readers to publish an article that doesn’t provide all relevant sides to the story. 

4:29 We see that right through the record.  Now these guys top all this tripe off, with these factually incorrect statements.  He say that the Antarctic gains do not offset Arctic loses.  It's factually incorrect.  Here's the data, the data shows global sea ice is the same now as it was in the nineteen seventies.  Here's a close up of it.  
Notice what's happened here?  

Suddenly we are challenged with a numbers game over very short term spikes in winter sea ice extent.  It's a meaningless comparison, particularly when simultaneously ignoring the massive amounts of millennia old glaciers that are calving off into the oceans.

This is typical of the malicious deceptions the frolly-types pull.  How about considering the profound differences between the Arctic Ocean surrounded by continent and the Antarctic continent surrounded by the Southern Ocean?  How about considering the difference between winter sea ice and millennia old glacial ice?

But frolly and pals aren't interested in acknowledging those details.  They're just out to vandalize the edifice of understanding in order to stupefy the public.

Five charts that show how Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is faring in 2015

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Antarctic Ice Mass Loss: Jan. 2004 - June 2014 Video | Aug 26, 2015 | 1:30 min
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
No Turning Back: West Antarctic Glaciers in Irreversible Decline
Universe Odyssey |  Published on May 13, 2014 | 3:34 min

Science@NASA: A new study led by NASA researchers shows that half-a-dozen key glaciers in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are in irreversible decline. The melting of these icy giants will affect global sea levels in the centuries ahead.

Related Videos:
"NASA | Runaway Glaciers in West Antarctica":
"NASA | West Antarctica Glaciers: Past the Point of No Return":
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
East Antarctic is also seeing ominous glacier melt speed up.
Trouble at Totten Glacier
Published on Apr 14, 2015 | 5:40 min | Peter Sinclair

Eastern Antarctica, and in particular the enormous Totten Glacier, has escaped much public awareness. This video points to similarities between glacier melt in eastern and western Antarctica, as scientists explore a potentially concerning future for the vast glacier.
Washington Post on Totten glacier research
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5:00  -  Now what this actually is sea ice loss since 2000 is a 60-year cycle associated with the solar barycenter cycle so it's got a little or nothing at all to do with CO2.

Sea ice loss because of changes in the barycenter cycle?  

That would be the subtle shifting of the Earth/Sun's respective center of gravity as they rotate around each other.  Fascinating science fiction stuff, perfect for echo-chamber science.  They say it's also responsible for earthquakes and can even predict them, if you know how to read it.

Not to say that everything doesn't exert a force on everything according to it's nature.  

Barycenter is plenty real.  But, come on, can we get serious.

When it comes to the dynamics of our evaporating oceans and spinning Earth and the sun beating down on the equator.  Ever consider that we exist under an ocean of compressed air?  Against all those massive components of our global heat and moisture distribution engine, those Barycenters disappear into the infinitesimal.

It's amazing the bizarre stuff these people embrace in order to keep hiding from the obvious: IT'S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION, STUPID!" 
(excuse my language)

It's solid molecular physics and geophysics.  
Slowing down heat's escape into space will warm all within that system.  

Age old cycles continue but now they exist within this warming climate system, can't squirm your way out of that truth no matter how much someone lies to themselves and others.

 so it's a common cycle we had the ice loss in the 1930s just like we have had just in the 2000s.  
Another example of frolly dependence on the stupefying lie.  

Arctic ice age, 1987-2014

NOAA | Jan 21, 2015 | 1:03 min
Decades ago, the majority of the Arctic's winter ice pack was made up of thick, perennial ice. Today, very old ice is extremely rare. This animation tracks the relative amount of ice of different ages from 1987 through early November 2014.

So it's nothing unusual, nothing to worry about, the icesheet is gonna come back just as it is now.
How is the required cooling going to happen in a world with radically increased global insulation?  We have cranked that CO2 ppm regulator from around 280 to 400 in a very short period of time.  This is settled science, frolly's multiple lies not withstanding.

As for our planet's cryosphere, that is in deep trouble.  Lie and hide from the truth all you will, that will not bring the glaciers back. 

Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing as Arctic sea ice declines?
Deborah Byrd | SEP 27, 2014

5:30  OK, I'm just going to add a couple more papers, from Norway and from Russia, just to add weight to my argument that the recent changes we've seen says warming the Arctic is nothing unusual, and it's not driven by atmospheric CO2 concentrations.    
Complete nonsense.  
It's well established serious science, the fruits of an awful lot of research, take a look:


5:47  Just for good measure I'll throw in a couple about Antarctica
 which show that Antarctica is gaining both sea ice and land ice, and Antarctica has been cooling since 1966.  
A random study here and there is the stuff of cherry picking, curve-fitting and echo-chamber "science."  The following information exposes how clueless frolly actually is.  Go ahead click on those temperature trend maps for what actual observations are telling scientists, and they are relaying to us, as it should be.  They are the experts, we're just outspoken spectators.

David Schneider, Project Scientist
To complement the publication, An assessment and interpretation of the observed warming of West Antarctica in the austral spring, comparing trend estimates in numerous Antarctic temperature data sets.

2012: An assessment and interpretation of the observed warming of West Antarctica in the austral spring, 
Schneider, D.P., C. Deser, and Y. Okumura,
Climate Dynamics 38(1), 323-347, doi:10.1007/s00382-010-0985-x. [Article]

  • Annual timeseries, area-weighted for the whole continent, similar to Figure 2 in Schneider et al. (2012) but including temperature anomalies from GISTEMP for 64-90S (includes some ocean SST) and from the O'Donnell et al. (2011) RLS reconstruction
Pretty fascinating stuff.

Because I mentioned the 60 years solar cycle which is very prominent in our climate system and is not recognized by the IPCC 
More nonsense.  
Don't be fooled by frolly's graph, it's an artful interpretation "based" 'CruData' numbers.

IPCC certainly does recognize solar activity based on many detailed studies. 

TS.2.4 Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

What frolly refuses to recognize is that evidence shows this Solar forcing has been very stable, in fact going down a little so if his "theory" were solid, we'd be seeing some cooling, but something is interfering with that cooling.  

What could it be?  

6:14  -  see quite clearly here in the __ three temperature record which spans 1850 to 2014 - they stopped using in 2014 because the HADcrut four had higher temperatures
cause they were worried about the pause.  
Always the need to sketch grand conspiracies.  That happens when one doesn't have any scientific substance on one's side.  

The notion of coordinated manipulation of this data is entirely ludicrous.  Collecting this data is unimaginably complex and comes from various sources, with many cross checks, any attempt to manipulate would require system-wide adjustments, that are impossible.  And those that might be pulled off, would raise red flags and a closer looks.  

Scientists are constantly checking and rechecking their data and instruments looking for errors and glitches, then they fix those errors and glitches and learn what they can from the experience, and the ones they can't fix they study so much the more intensely.

Curious about CruData, why listen to a habitual liar, why not listen to the actual experts?

1000frolly stop lying to yourself and others:

Five-Year Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2013
Universe Odyssey | Jan 21, 2014 | 0:26 min


Also see: 
This is what a scientist sounds like, Dr. Randall on Clouds and such.


citizenschallenge said...

I let frolly know I've posted this. Dismissive insult was all I got. Was I expecting more. Nah, I'm getting to know these clowns.
But I did see a comment at another one of his videos that sums up frolly's claims quite well:
J Glad (2 months ago"
Even if what you say is true, you're multiplying unnoticeable by the inconsequential :)

That's how they do it.
Find a sliver of truth; morph it into their entire story; and ignore everything else.

David Smith said...

This is perhaps the worst formatting I have seen on any website.
Completely unreadable.

citizenschallenge said...

Well yeah, I don't have all the bells and whistles - it is a pretty basic program I'm working with.
At least I don't have a dozen ads cluttering up the page, that ought to be worth something ; )
I know it's not quite as clear as I'd like it to be.
But, I think it's improving.
If you, or anyone, had any constructive suggestions, I'm listening.

You know Dave, then again maybe you don't, still it's actually quite the challenge doing this sort of post with, shall we say, multiple narrators (that would be frolly, me and the evidence I point to.

But it is consistent and with little bit of good-faith effort, it falls into place well enough. What you may not appreciate is that I'm not writing this for you or the science contrarian crowd. This is my study project, and I'm sharing it with those who are interested in learning about the Republican/libertarian mindset and debate tactics in their war on science.

citizenschallenge said...

This is part of a series:
(1) Profiles in Malicious Deception - 1000frolly

(2A) Profiles in Malicious Deception - Svensmark + 1000frolly

(2B) Profiles in Malicious Deception (footnotes):Svensmark+1000frolly

(3A) Profiles in Malicious Deception - Svensmark + 1000frolly

(3B) Profiles in Malicious Deception (footnotes): Svensmark + 1000frolly

(4A) Profiles in Malicious Deception - 1000frolly: NASA-The "Mystery" of Antarctic Cooling

(4B) Profiles in Malicious Deception (footnotes): YouTube's 1000frolly: Antarctic Fraud

citizenschallenge said...

Unknown, May 27, 2019 at 8:49AM writes: “... It is hard to blame (frolly1000 fans) given the complete and utter disregard for truth, logic or coherence displayed by parts of academia and the liberal media on.”

Please produce some examples of climate science proposing stuff in utter disregard for the truth?!

What can you produce for us to look at? Original scientific sources, NOT headlines from magazines and newspapers !

Oh and how is it you don't recognize the obvious inconsistencies and lies woven throughout frolly1000 videos???