SkepticalScience.com - Climate Myths Sorted by Taxonomy

Of course, it’s impossible to discuss climate science findings without also being confronted with the endless repetitive cross-fire from the bullhorns of naysayers and their bias driven unidirectional skepticism and disconnected-from-physical-reality lies.  

As a result the folks at SkepticalScience.com made a point of studying contrarian claims and then explaining the real science that climate science “skeptics” consistently choose to ignore.

Republicans have a hubristic confidence in their own self-interest, and because they’ve convinced themselves that they possess God in their back pockets, it’s okay for them to disregard fundamental geophysical evidence and facts.  It's lunatic thinking, still here we are.

The real tragedy is that nobody is interested in learning.  They only know their personal wants and by their actions and words, they appear to lack intellectual integrity, how else could they so easily refuse to listen, let alone learn lessons, all the while shamelessly repeating the same juvenile nonsense over and over and over again.  

What kind of nonsense you ask?  Well, take a look,

SkepticalScience.com, Climate Myths sorted by taxonomy

• It's not happening
• Temp record is unreliable
• Hockey stick is broken
• Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
• Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
• Dropped stations introduce warming bias
• It's Urban Heat Island effect
• 1934 - hottest year on record
• It's microsite influences
• Satellite error inflated Great Lakes temperatures
• Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers
• It's cooling
• We're heading into an ice age
• It's freaking cold!
• Record snowfall disproves global warming
• Record high snow cover was set in winter 2008/2009
• 2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells
• Oceans are cooling
• It hasn't warmed since 1998
• Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
• Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????

Observations regarding Sept 7th, Anonymous Comment

I received the following comment which didn't pass muster. 

I accept constructive comments and challenges.  If you want to challenge what I've written do so.  But yelling about rationalists being like a Nazi cult, and such further disconnected from reality ranting ain't an intelligent discussion. Your comment is being REJECTED!

That doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss it:

COMMENT READS: After looking at the name calling dialog by the two attackers of Dr Holmes 

Can you offer any specifics we can calmly discuss?

and their ferocious need to out him and chastise him for his work and opinions. 

Hold on.  There is a YouTube Channel that goes under the name of Frolly1000 - it spews slander and scientific ignorance (lies and misrepresentations) along with a load of contempt.  It has to do with his politicizing climate science and scaring people out of learning about it in a serious constructive manner.

What’s wrong with outing such a malicious fraud?  

Why shouldn’t we be curious about who the character is behind such a devious attack on serious honest scientists and the work they have done? 

I agree with Dr.Holmes, this climate hysteria has become more of a cult or religion. 

Diary July 31, 2019

This past winter and spring I spent a good deal of time dissecting Jim Steele’s malicious game of deliberate deception in his Pacifica Tribune’s “What’s Natural?’ column and it was taking its toll.

On the one hand, I like the work of studying others’ writings - investigating and searching out new information, double checking my own assertions and recollections, learning, relearning and taking the time to examine, recognize and expose the ‘mechanics of deception’ in action.  In that way it’s my classroom and a positive exercise.

On the other hand, it’s profoundly depressing coming face to face with these real life intellectual zombies that never ever seem to change.  They pompously cry for debate, yet try having a serious constructive dialogue with them.  First comes the attitudes of superiority, then the dismissal, then avoidance, then insults and derision, then they run and hide, but never an adult discussion.  

And no one seems to care much!  Free pass for all.  So they get away with it, over and over like a spreading pathogen, and no one seems capable of doing anything about it.

Ask questions, make challenges, explain the simple and well understood science of Earth’s climate.  Write and rewrite, present evidence, teach, reason, strive till you're blue.  Yet not a word is heard, not a lesson is absorbed.   Absolutely nothing gets incorporated into their understanding.  Utter hopelessness.

Contrarian arguments today are exactly the same as they were ten, twenty and more years ago.  It’s like the immortal words of Homer Simpson: “No Marge, I didn’t learn a thing.”

Jim, What's Natural about Polar Bear habitat disruption?

Steele Which Narrative to Believe?

This review of May 1st What’s Natural? will take the form of a direct letter to Mr. Steele.

Jim Steele,

I thought your title “Polar Bears. Which narrative to believe?” was apropos considering your freewheeling narrative. You ask which narrative to believe?  Indeed, that is the question.  So, lets get on with it.  Why should we believe your’s?

In the first column (4/17/18) of this double-bill, you use an Inuit word in a way, which I found out, locals of Nunavut found foreign.  Yes, I shared your column with a few.  That got me to thinking that perhaps your usage was simply a gratuitous prop to impress your audience.  Or what?

Then you drag a scientist from the middle of New York City into the middle of the Nunavut Polar Bear controversy - though said scientist has never spoken on the topic in any way.  He’ll tell you frankly: “I know nothing about it.” 

Why did you need to fabricate words to put into Gavin Schmidt’s mouth?  Simply to set him up as the straight-guy for your zinger punchline:  

“If you dare disagree with models of gloom and doom, you are attacked as an ignorant denier.” 

#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  

#D) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (15-27)

“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 though it has the stink of GOP astro-turfing about it.  But I know fraud and libel when I see it and I will be spending the next 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 the citizen's right and need to honestly hear about what climate scientists are learning!

To spell out my case I will be quoting the entire editorial (nothing left out, nothing added) talking point by talking point, in chronological order.  Though broken down into bite-sized chunks, here we examine Points of Contention 15 to 27, Investors Business Daily quotes are in Courier font.

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Message to interested readers, I'm just an outside life long observer and my writing is done in fits and starts with constant short and long interrupts, thus it never surpasses the 'grandma moses' level.  But, my information is solid and my reasoning is solid and I welcome anyone with more time and focus, to take anything at WUWTW and use it as a starting point for better efforts that reach more people.  

Of course, if anyone were interested in helping me work on this, my obvious passion, to see what I could accomplish with the luxury of full-time focus on my side, please do let me know.  Thank you, Peter aka citizenschallenge

P.O.Box 56 - Durango, Colorado, 81302 - citizenschallenge at gmail

_______________________________________________________________

Investor's Business Daily POC#16 - “It could happen because the giant global-warming industry — made up of government bureaucrats, professors, scientists, researchers and think-tank fellows, and allied as it is to the U.N.'s socialist agenda”

_______________________________ 

Here they go again, rather than sticking to the topic of Hurricane Harvey’s supposed non-connection to our warming global weather engine, Investor’s Business want’s us to forget the topic and climb into the world of polarized political showmanship and enemy fabrication.

The more outlandish the better for inflaming the troops.  UN is a socialist plot to take away all your freedoms.  Come on you sillies get real, we depend on our weather for all we hold near and dear, can we get on point?  Any appreciation for our society includes an awareness that weather impacts every facet of our lives.  

We want people to study it, we want people understanding how we are changing it and what those changes mean for our future, and how to prepare.

Oh speaking of sinister mega plots, 

Oil Giants Spend $115 Million A Year To Oppose Climate Policy

By Casey Williams

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-companies-climate-policy_us_570bb841e4b0142232496d97

Major fossil fuel companies and trade groups shell out nearly $115 million a year to oppose efforts to reduce carbon emissions, according to a new report from the British research organization Influence Map.

#C) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (10-14)

“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 and I will be spending the next 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 the citizen's right and need to honestly hear about what climate scientists are learning!

To spell out my case I will be quoting the entire editorial (nothing left out, nothing added) talking point by talking point, in chronological order.  Though broken down into bite-sized chunks, here we examine Points of Contention 10 to 14, Investors Business Daily quotes are in Courier font. 

Message to interested readers, I'm just an outside life long observer and my writing is done in fits and starts with constant short and long interrupts, thus it never surpasses the 'grandma moses' level.  But, my information is solid and my reasoning is solid and I welcome anyone with more time and focus, to take anything at WUWTW and use it as a starting point for better efforts that reach more people.  

Of course, if anyone were interested in helping me work on this, my obvious passion, to see what I could accomplish with the luxury of full-time focus on my side, please do let me know.  Thank you, Peter aka citizenschallenge

P.O.Box 56 - Durango, Colorado, 81302 - citizenschallenge at gmail

______________________________________________________________

Investor's Business Daily POC#10 - “Ironically, Mann published his hockey-stick paper in 1998,” 

_______________________________

Yet more ironically, his detractors never mention this part of that paper:

Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries

Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/guido/PHY2502/articles/climate-records/Mann_Bradley_Hughes_1998.pdf

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Northern Hemisphere Temperature During the Past Millennium: 

Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations

Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, Malcom Hughes

March 15, 1999

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MBH1999.pdf

______________________________________________________________

Investor's Business Daily POC#11 - “after which satellite temperature data — the most complete and accurate weather data we have"

_______________________________
This opens up quite the can of worms, but if Investor’s Daily wants to go there so be it.  

#B) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (4-9)

“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, but I know fraud and libel when I see it and I will be spending the next few days dissecting this particular example of malicious wordsmithing crossing over into criminal vandalism in an effort to make my case.  

I will be quoting the entire (nothing left out, nothing added) editorial, talking point by talking point, in chronological order, though broken down into bite-sized chunks, here we examine Points of Contention (POC) 4 to 9, Investors Business Daily quotes are in Courier font. 

Message to interested readers, I'm just an outside life long observer and my writing is done in fits and starts with constant short and long interrupts, thus it never surpasses the 'grandma moses' level.  But, my information is solid and my reasoning is solid and I welcome anyone with more time and focus, to take anything at WUWTW and use it as a starting point for better efforts that reach more people.  

Of course, if anyone were interested in helping me work on this, my obvious passion, to see what I could accomplish with the luxury of full-time focus on my side, please do let me know.  Thank you, Peter aka citizenschallenge

P.O.Box 56 - Durango, Colorado, 81302 - citizenschallenge at gmail

_______________________________ 

Investor's Business Daily POC#4 - “In this case, it was temperature data. Mann's famous "hockey stick" rendition of temperature and climate changes makes it appear as if temperatures began rising sharply in the 19th century as carbon dioxide from the Industrial Revolution began to build up,”

___________________________

First, this mixing up temperature and climate change as though it’s the same thing indicates profound unfamiliarity with the most fundamental 'facts of life' of our global climate engine.  “Climate changes” are the result of warming (or cooling) our planet!  

When it comes from the lips of experts, it’s an indication of the hideous amount of seepage they’ve allowed to fuzzy up their communication.  It’s simple unavoidable physics warming leads, changes follow, propaganda-speak not withstanding.

The rest is true enough.  That is what Mann et al. 1998 and 1999 did, because that’s where the data took them.  But please remember, the graph is about tracking temperature - NOT climate change.

Those were pioneering papers.  They were built on the work of others and others have continued to build on their effort.

“An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). … , they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.”

“Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock.  … 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). …, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.”

“… A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows…, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006)."

Historical records of glacier length …, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005)

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).
https://www.skepticalscience.com

In other words, all the real world physical evidence indicates the Dr. Mann’s team was onto something.  So why does the GOP and Investors Business trivialize it?  This is important information to process.  

#A) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (1,2,3)

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

Sometimes it seems that scientists still haven’t figured out that the world is not filled with curious interested students wanting to understand our Earth’s climate engine’s geophysics better.  Tragically most people couldn’t care less and it seems an increasingly large portion are getting hostile and actually do not want to know.  Add to the horror, there are a few who are willing to do very ruthless things to make sure others don’t get a chance to learn about climate science.

An excellent example of this mentality is www Investors.com recent character assassination hit on Dr. Michael Mann, via an outrageous, I’m claiming criminally libelous editorial at their Investors Business Daily.  Fortunately Dr. Mann has escaped this latest attempt on his character and continues to do world class science.   

I have no idea who's behind Investors Business Daily, but I know fraud when I see it and I will be spending the next few days dissecting this particular example of malicious wordsmithing in an effort to make my case.  

A preliminary review gives me 24 specific Points of Contention, final turned out to be 36 points of contention.  I will be quoting the entire (nothing deleted, nothing added) editorial, talking point by talking point, in chronological order, though broken down into bite-sized chunks.  Often I'll be speaking first person to the writers, so don't take the "you" personally, well unless you agree their GOP view of the world.  

My first three Points Of Contention.

Investor's Business Daily POC#1 - “Global Warming: When a controversial climatologist (Michael Mann)…”

Controversial?  Hmmm, who is calling Dr. Mann controversial?

Sure Dr. Mann has been targeted by ruthless coordinated attacks from EXXON and Koch industry forces along with the powers of the Murdoch media octopus, and GOP luminaries - parties who’s main interest is to slanderize, ridicule and dismiss serious climate science using whatever tactic is required at the moment.

The thing to remember is that Dr. Mann has continued doing serious science and as such the people most qualified to judge him are his peers, namely the community of scientists and experts who understand the extremely complex subject he’s put his mind to.

Google can offer us some idea of their collective opinion of Dr. Mann’s competence and integrity.  Take a look, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann,

Message to interested readers, I'm just an outside life long observer and my writing is done in fits and starts with constant short and long interrupts, thus it never surpasses the 'grandma moses' level.  But, my information is solid and my reasoning is solid and I welcome anyone with more time and focus, to take anything at WUWTW and use it as a starting point for better efforts that reach more people.  

Of course, if anyone were interested in helping me focus more on this, my obvious passion, to see what I could accomplish with the luxury of full-time focus on my side, please do let know.  

Citizenschallenge - P.O.Box 56 - Durango, Colorado, 81302 - citizenschallenge at gmail

GOP Leaders and Media Paint Exxon as Victim.(May 28, 2016-Peter Dykstra)

After a short break I got to working on John Bates Feb. 5th article at ClimateEtc., but the nasty one-sided thing is overwhelming and distasteful in the extreme, makes me want to run away.   Then researching questions adds another level of hopelessness.  Every google search for a climate related item seems to begin with a handful, if not a ton of, Astro-Turfed climate science contrarian crazy-making, YouTube is even worse - repetitive and transparently ignorant arguments that have been discussed and explained over and over and over - but no one is at home on 'the side' as they repeat the same deluded talking points and refuse any deeper self-examination.  

Like I mentioned recently, trying to discuss serious science based topics with GOP representatives of climate science denial is worse that trying to explain serious things to kids, it more akin to trying to get through to a profoundly autistic kid, when nothing at all connects because they are so thoroughly locked up within their own mindscapes that nothing from the outside can get in.  

What's the point, why even care?  I find myself asking me that more and more.
 But, for some god awful reason, walking away from their insanity and simply ignoring the willful stupidity - and what it will commit our children's lives and our miraculous planet's future to - doesn't work for me either.

In any event, today I noticed Lamar Smith's hard-on against serious science has been mentioned over here before so I'll repost those today.
__________________________________
Seems to me this is important information to get out there, so I will take advantage of Daily Climate's CC license and repost most of Peter Dykistra's opinion piece in the DailyClimate and encourage you to help inform others.

It's another example of how the Republican PR machine is utterly dependent on misrepresenting science and other facts of record.  Their obstinate refusal to listen to serious experts and to learn about the issues divorced from their political self-interest will guarantee all our kids a bleak difficult future.

But hoping for some sober objectivity and enlightened self-interest seems like asking the impossible these days.  Here we are once again faced with a glaring example of what oil company lap dogs these Republican Representatives are.  All they seem to know is self-interest.  So tragic.

__________________________________

Opinion: In Meme-Moriam

By Peter Dykstra

May 28, 2016

The Daily Climate

http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2016/may/in-meme-moriam-contrast-between-exxon2019s

...  The effort to cast Exxon as victim of a cabal between state Attorneys General, environmentalists, and other ne’er-do-wells followed reports by journalists from InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. They uncovered a howlingly hypocritical contrast between Exxon’s longtime internal embrace of climate science and its external support for climate denial.

Decades ago, Exxon began to ignore its own scientists’ warnings on the prospects for global disruption from climate change, opting instead to focus on climate change’s threat to the fossil fuel business model. Following the pattern set by tobacco, pesticide, asbestos and tetraethyl lead producers, Exxon circled the tankers and fought against progress on climate. ...

. . . When the American conservative media machine kicks into action, it is an awesome thing, taking no prisoners while apparently serving as a real job-killer for the fact-checking community. I (Peter Dykstra) found dozens of opinion pieces, editorials, and unbalanced news stories in the three-week period from March 31 to April 22, all embracing ExxonMobil’s trampled free speech rights in the face of investigative reports and meddlesome Attorneys General. 

Curiously, not a single one of these First Amendment themed tomes made mention of the years of harassment, threats, bottomless FOIA requests, and Congressional inquiries targeting actual climate scientists.

From “mainstream” sources like Bloomberg and USA Today to movement mouthpieces like the Washington Times and National Review to countless ideological blogs and websites, the message repeated as if it were spit out of a photocopier.  The Washington Post ran not one but two Exxon-victim pieces on April 22 (Happy Earth Day, y’all!)