Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial

On climate change, we’re politically polarized—which would be bad enough, but that’s not all. The hole we’ve dug is even deeper—as new research clearly suggests.

There’s yet another study out on Democrats, Republicans, and climate change, this time from Lawrence Hamilton of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Over the last two years, in a series of regional surveys, Hamilton asked nearly 9,500 people questions about climate change—from Appalachia to the Gulf Coast, and from New Hampshire to Alaska. 

Across all these regions, he consistently found the following phenomenon: Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know less about the climate issue were more like one another in terms of whether they accepted the science. Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know a lot about the issue, by contrast, were vastly polarized—with knowledgeable Democrats overwhelmingly accepting the science, and knowledgeable Republicans overwhelmingly denying it.

Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who are most confident that they understand this issue,” writes Hamilton. “Republicans and Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart in their beliefs.”

This core finding itself is not new—a 2008 Pew survey also found that Republicans with a college level of education were less likely to accept the science of climate than Republicans who lack such education. Other studies have also underscored this fundamental point. But for precisely that reason, Hamilton’s research kind of puts it in the realm of indisputable political fact. Not only are we polarized over climate change, but our knowledge and sophistication, when combined with our politics, make matters worse.

How could this be? For Hamilton, the explanation lies in the interaction between how we get information (from trusted news and Internet sources, we think, but we’re actually being selective) and our own biases in evaluating it (objectively, we think, but again, we’re actually being selective). “People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views,” Hamilton writes. “Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs.” In other words, we’re twice biased—based on our views and information sources—and moreover, twice biased in different directions.

Thus it really makes a lot of sense that those who are paying less attention to the climate issue, whether nominally Democrat or Republican, are less polarized and less sure of themselves. They’re not working nearly as hard at reaffirming their convictions, and refuting the convictions of the other side. (Hamilton’s study implies, though, that that they may have a different problem—they know so little that they may be more likely to be buffeted by the weather in terms of how they think about climate. If it’s hot out, maybe they’ll worry. If it’s cold, they’ll scoff.)

Overall, the big picture is that our society is not making up its mind in anything like a rational or scientific manner about climate change. That’s unfortunate–but it would be a form of denial itself at this point to reject the finding. 



As evidenced by the content and quality your last two posts, the two of you have spent way too much time rattling around in the Climate Denial Spin Machine.

Just getting started.

I got this job to set up a program of Environmental Stewardship in the company I’m working for. Decided to hone up on the focus areas; waste, food, chemicals and climate change. Couldn’t get my head around how my company was going to change the climate in any measurable way without imploding. These past few weeks have been a great education for me. I now understand the emotions and arguments involved and much better equipped to manage them.

The rest is history………

“Couldn’t get my head around how my company was going to change the climate in any measurable way without imploding.”

Wow, its gone from how can our one country changing energy habits affect the climate to how can one company change the climate?

Its a bit like the arguments industries were making between the 70-80s about CFCs. How can stopping our emissions of CFCs stop the ozone hole expanding? It will affect us too much economically & others are doing it too, what about them!?

The point is, if everyone does their bit, then like a fund raising drive, the little bits when pooled together add up & make a difference to the total.

I share what initial ignited my interest in the subject and get a tirade in return.

You guys really know how to engage in conversation.

You have a big problem to overcome in this respect.

What ignited your desire was your greed.

What continues burning at your mind is your failure to understand a damn thing.

What is poisonous is your need to ignore any evidence any conclusions and any discussion that could intefere with your religion both about the evils of government, the evils of ecology and the overwhelming need to be master of the planet.

Have you got anything else you can bring to the table other than an out of date and currently unsupported prediction of a 2009 report?

Please provide the evidence rather than knee jerk incorrect personal stereo typing which says more in your guilt rather than defense.

“guilt rather than defense” would be better phrased by: “dearth rather than substance”.

Getting there………

yet not once has titas complained about the age of GF’s 935 papers of rather more ancient provenance.

‘course since titas gets all his stuff from blogs, there’s no need to wait for peer review or publishing, but just bang out any old crap on the web and he’ll swallow it.

Source: “NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries – Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years,” NOAA News Release, July 28, 2010.

NOTE: The PAST DECADE is warmest on record.

Now, how does another year added on make the past decade at 2009 not at 2009 the warmest decade?

Only in the diseased brain of a denier in complete spastic overload.


“Most people rely on secondary sources for information, especially the mass media; and some of these sources are affected by concerted campaigns against policies to limit CO2 emissions, which promote beliefs about climate change that are not well-supported by scientific evidence. U.S. media coverage sometimes presents aspects of climate change that are uncontroversial among the research community as being matters of serious scientific debate. Such factors likely play a role in the increasing polarization of public beliefs about climate change, along lines of political ideology, that has been observed in the United States.”

“Climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three. And their recalcitrance is dangerous, the report makes clear”

Describes Titus, Go Figure & Gareth perfectly.

The evidence is that CO2’s doing it.

The only thing changing CO2 levels enough to explain the change in CO2 is man.


“That which is seen”.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we’ve changed CO2 enough to account for it.

Past actions of CO2 has caused warming, so you have to explain why it isn’t doing it this time.

Very brief one page summary of the situation (Dr Evans was deeply involved in climate research, and -up to a point - enjoyed that gravy train)

You mean the Dr Evans who admits he lies to get funding?

THAT Dr Evans? So why do you believe him?

Ah, is it because he’s saying something you Truly Believe in?

That’d be it.

“There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming”

Yes, because by heating up, the energy going out will increase.

This is called “Global Warming”.

PS I note that it’s OK for go figure to use blogrolls. Two faced of him, isn’t it. This is why he likes Dr Evans.

Have a look at the solar output over the past few decades:

The last time the sun was this quiet was 1995.

But look at this graph:

The temperature in 1995 was 0.3C cooler than in 2005!

Maybe it was a fluke. The time before that the sun was this cool was 1986. But the temperatures then were 0.4C cooler!

PROOF that the sun hasn’t caused it and that any records cherry-picked out from data will be broken when the sun comes back to its wonted splendour.

Dr. Evans says nothing that I haven’t said earlier. He is a scientist, and states the real science very clearly in less than one very readable page. In summary, the proponents of AGW (the “warmists/alarmists”) have no basis for their claims - they are speculating, not any different than the folks now scurrying around claiming that May 21st is doomsday (except in that case the issue will be completely resolved on May 22nd).

Evans was on the gravy train himself until it became obvious that the “science” (related to AGW claim) was wrong. I have provided references to him and, earlier, to Jones because they were (Jones still is) members in good standing at your Church.

Evans gives up the gravy train, and that makes him a “liar” ? His statement is quite clear. You should know what question to put forth on your other favorite blogs. See what they have to say. Notice how your church members will obfuscate the very issue that Evans directly addresses. See if you can find a clear rebuttal. (calling Evans a liar does not qualify) (I’d be very interested in seeing that rebuttal, but don’t send me to me site that is merely bloviating. If they can’t clearly explain why Evans is wrong, I’m not interested.)

Incidentally, your immediate name-calling response is completely consistent with the Church of AGW treatment of its ex-members (? excommunicated) …..


He’s said many other things. When he was 2 he said “Da da”. You never mentioned that, did you.

“He is a scientist”

No, he may once have been one, but no more.

“and states the real science very clearly in less than one very readable page.”

No, he states very obvious bollocks in one very nutcase page. Of course, you lap it up because you’re a believer.

“Evans was on the gravy train himself”

And he said that. He said HE lied to get funding. Why now do you believe him? Denial was worth $16million to Patrick.

“until it became obvious that the “science” (related to AGW claim) was wrong.”

Except he hasn’t managed to prove that in any form WHATSOEVER.

“Evans gives up the gravy train, and that makes him a “liar” ?”

No, Evans himself says he’s lied to get funding. THAT makes him a liar.

“His statement is quite clear.”

It is: he says he’s lied to get money. Somehow you can’t see it.

“See if you can find a clear rebuttal.”

To what?

He says:”It’s a scam”. Everyone else: “No it’s not a scam”.

“There’s a feedback reducing the warming”: This was already rebutted: a warmer planet radiates more, this is why you EVENTUALLY reach equilibrium. So he’s not saying anything the IPCC and AGW doesn’t say.

“for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air.”: False. Go look at the source code for one climate model:

NOWHERE does it make that assertion.

“During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot”: Because the hot spot is hard to measure and weather ballons are not made for climate work: different balloons, different calibrated sensors.

And during the 2000’s, the hot spot has been seen.

“At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science.”

At this point Evans stops being a scientist. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Such an assertion is where Evans stops being a scientist.

“The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets”

False. In fact, rebutted by no less a personage than Anthony Watts:

“Global temperature is also measured by satellites”

I thought global temperature couldn’t be measured, GF? Are you saying that you’ve changed your mind, or that Evans is wrong and satellites don’t measure global temperature?

“which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias.”

False. Microwave sounding units measure radiative intensity and this has to be converted BY A COMPUTER MODEL into a temperature profile.

Such a bias has already caused Roy Spencer’s data to be adjusted to correct the failure. UAH and RSS now show a trend of between 0.15 and 0.13C per decade. Satellites also have to measure a vertical volume. Since the stratosphere is cooling, the satellite values are lower because it sees less radiation.

” The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998”

Makes no difference: that is a weather measurement, not a climate one.

“and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.”

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. You cannot determine a trend different from 0.2C per decade since 2001, therefore the satellite information DOES NOT disprove AGW, the IPCC or even state that the temperatures are now flat.

‘Dr. Evans says nothing that I haven’t said earlier. He is a scientist…’

Correction, was a scientist, because now he eschews the principles of science by distorting the same as is evidenced from his stuff about a ‘tropical hotspot’. Do you recall GF, that ‘hotspot’ you kept barfing a few posts ago and do you recall my mention of something called the lapse rate. You should check it out - but hey you don’t want facts and evidence spoiling your day now do you.


David Evans Doesn’t know what the hot spot is.

Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 20, 2008 10:45 AM, by Tim Lambert

Back in July, David Evans had on opinion piece in the Australian claiming:

The greenhouse signature is missing. … The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.

This is wrong. The hot spot is not the signature, since you get a hot spot, no matter what the cause. The signature is stratospheric cooling combined with tropospheric warming and that has been detected.

Despite being told this, Evans repeated his false claim on ABC radio prompting Barry Brooks to explain again that:

the hotspot was not a signature of the greenhouse effect - it is a signature of warming from any source

Evans just ignored this as Brooks relates:

Unsurprisingly, [Evans] deploys the standard non-greenhouse theorist approach of yet again blithely ignoring any refutation and simply repeating the exactly the same arguments again in a third forum. So, yet again, a climate scientist had to patiently refute this.

So guess what we find on ABC Unleashed on Friday? Evans repeating all the false claims from his earlier pieces. (Though he has cranked up the rhetoric and is now making defamatory statements about climate scientists.) And, of course, he includes this:

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming.

I suppose we should count our blessings that he deigns to mention the stratospheric cooling thing.

Evans volunteered to defend his piece at Club Troppo. I pressed him on his claims:

The hot spot is not the signature of greenhouse warming. The IPCC report you cite does not say that it is. I quoted the relevant part above. Here it is again:

The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.

His response

Now Tim, look at the sentence after the one you quoted: “The combination of a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere has likely led to an increase in the height of the tropopause.” That increase in the height of the tropopause IS the hotspot! The hotspot arises in AGW theory because an increase in greenhouse gases (of CO2 due to humans, and of water vapor due to increasing temperature) pushes the top of the tropopause higher, thus replacing cold stratosphere with warmer troposphere at the top of the troposphere – which is at about 10km over the tropics. (Btw, it now appears that the atmosphere just drops out water vapor as it is replaced by CO2, to keep the total greenhouse effect about constant. This is the nub of the argument, and where AGW went wrong.)

Despite going on endlessly about the hot spot for a half a year, Evans doesn’t even know what it is. The hot spot is not an increase in the height of the tropopause. You’d get that from uniform heating of the troposphere as well. The hot spot is a decrease in the lapse rate, as the team at RealClimate explains:

[The hot spot] really has nothing to do with greenhouse gas changes, but is a more fundamental response to warming (however caused). Indeed, there is a clear physical reason why this is the case - the increase in water vapour as surface air temperature rises causes a change in the moist-adiabatic lapse rate (the decrease of temperature with height) such that the surface to mid-tropospheric gradient decreases with increasing temperature (i.e. it warms faster aloft). This is something seen in many observations and over many timescales, and is not something unique to climate models.

And increasing CO2 does not decrease water vapour. See, for example Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003-2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35:

Warming temperatures evaporate water, increasing humidity. This increase in humidity has the potential to further warm the atmosphere because water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. This water vapor feedback has the capacity to about double the direct warming from greenhouse gas increases. Using satellite data, Dessler et al. (2008) observed and quantified the behavior of atmospheric water vapor and the water vapor feedback during variations of the Earth’s climate between 2003 and 2008. They found that global averaged surface air temperatures on Earth varied by 0.6°C during the years analyzed, with specific humidity over most of the troposphere increasing with rising global surface temperature averages. Relative humidity increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, similar to that seen by climate models. The magnitude of the feedback is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant relative humidity everywhere.

Update: See also Chris Colose’s post on Evans’ confusion. And Evans sticks his foot deeper into his mouth:

I understand that the water vapor treatment of the models used to be simply to assume constant relative humidity. So in the models, as temperature rose there was more water vapor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so creates a hotpot. (Which is why those models show a hotpot for any source of warming, and why a hotspot is so associated with an enhanced greenhouse effect.) However observations show that since the 1940s the relative humidity has been steadily dropping, pretty much everywhere as I recall (sorry, do not recall link).

Not only does Evans not know what the hot spot is, he doesn’t know what causes it. More water vapour means that there is more condensation up in the atmosphere. Condensation releases latent heat. That latent heat creates the hot spot. And notice the way he counters a link to a peer-reviewed paper that shows that relative humidity stays the same as the planet warms, with a “do not recall link” cite.


from, and please visit original before commenting to ensure you are clear as to who wrote what:

Also note this section:


The hot spot is not the signature of greenhouse warming. The IPCC report you cite does not say that it is. I quoted the relevant part above. Here it is again:

The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.


Which extends what I wrote about satellite temperature measurements in a recent post.

You see some of us have been round these blocks before. It seems you have only just fallen into the pile of do-do left by Watts, Nova etc.

And I have not even warmed up yet!

It isn’t the scientists getting the big bucks:

CEO of texaxo got $1million in 1981.

Patrick Michaels $16million from lobby groups.

Talking about lobbyists’ money is fruitless, unless you include our own government, which dwarfs all other expenditures in that area. Our government has expended billions (that’s with a “b”) on studies related to global warming. The grants and contracts in this area are enormous, and all of them focused on the “alarming” global warming - which is a hoax.

Look at the SCIENCE. Evans puts in clearly in just a few paragraphs.

Why do you suppose the proponents of AGW never mention satellite temperature readings? (Basically no warming for the past decade, and arguably, since 1998. (But…. that’s not the issue. We have warming, we have cooling, all the time. The issue is whether humans are having an impact, and speculation (which is all the warmists’ have) is NOT evidence. In fact, the warmist models ALL project a hot spot. Thousands of weather balloons, and satellites up there, but there is no hot spot. Their theory does not stand.

Which may be why you’re against it.

16million dollars is a LOT of gravy. And Evans wants some of it.

He’s said he’s willing to lie to get the bennies. Why don’t you believe him?

“Evans puts in clearly in just a few paragraphs.”

Evans puts a load of bullshit in just a few paragraphs. I’ve already rebutted several, but you can’t read it because it disproves you and if there’s anything you hate more than AGW being right, it’s you being wrong.

“Why do you suppose the proponents of AGW never mention satellite temperature readings?”

Why do you suppose they don’t mention it? Why do you make that assumption when it’s trivial to find out that you’re wrong:


Microwave satellite data have been used to create a ‘satellite temperature record’ for thick layers of the atmosphere including the troposphere (from the surface up to about 10 km) and the lower stratosphere (about 10 to 30 km). Despite several new analyses with improved cross-calibration of the 13 instruments on different satellites used since 1979 and compensation for changes in observing time and satellite altitude, some uncertainties remain in trends.


So, since you now KNOW that they actually DO mention it, why do you say they don’t?

Because you have read nothing but merely repeat what you’ve been told to say.

“Basically no warming for the past decade, and arguably, since 1998”


You never bother to read a thing, do you?

“We have warming, we have cooling, all the time.”

We don’t have them just because we sit here in the sunshine. There’s a REASON they happen. One reason we get warming is CO2 increases.

And when those CO2 increases are the cause of mankind’s actions, that makes the warming from the CO2 changes Anthropogenic.

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

“Thousands of weather balloons, and satellites up there, but there is no hot spot. ”

The hot spot has been seen, idiot.

And it’s no indicator of AGW.

Global food supplies will face “massive disruptions” from climate change, Olam International Ltd. predicted, as Agrocorp International Pte. said corn will gain to a record, stoking food inflation and increasing hunger.

“The fact is that climate around the world is changing and that will cause massive disruptions,” Sunny Verghese, chief executive officer at Olam, among the world’s three biggest suppliers of rice and cotton, said in a Bloomberg Television interview today. “We’re friendly to wheat, corn and soybeans and bearish on rice.”

Shrinking global food supplies helped push the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization’s World Food Price Index to a record for a second month in January. As food becomes less available and more expensive, “hoarding becomes widespread,” Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist at FAO, said Feb. 9, predicting prices of wheat and other grains are more likely to rise than decline in the next six months.

Corn futures surged 90 percent in the past year, while wheat jumped 80 percent and soybeans advanced 49 percent as the worst drought in at least half a century in Russia, flooding in Australia, excessive rainfall in Canada, and drier conditions in parts of Europe slashed harvests.

Source: “Climate Change May Cause ‘Massive’ Food Disruptions,” Bloomberg, Feb 15, 2011-02-23

“Climate change is already having an effect on the safety of the world’s food supplies and unless action is taken it’s only going to get worse, a Michigan State University professor told a symposium at this year’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.”

Source: “Climate Change Affecting Food Safety,” ScienceDaily, Feb 22, 2011

“Bad news for—achoo!—those who sniffle, er suffer their way through ragweed—sniff, snort, itch—season: A team of researchers has found that increased warming, particularly in the northern half of North America, has added weeks to the fall pollen season.”

Source: “Climate Change Extends Allergy Season in North America: Pollen season is lengthening in proportion to warming observed in North America.”, Scientific America, Feb 21. 2011,articleId-23513.html


The Maunder minimum, an era of very few detectable sunspots in the century after their discovery in 1610, suggests the solar sunspot cycle was not in operation at this time. Other evidence suggests the presence or lack of a solar cycle is related to changes in the solar luminosity output. Past ice ages of the Earth could be the result of a diminished solar luminosity output. Monitoring of the solar constant in the last decade from spacecraft suggests there are variations on the order of one-half percent.


and on that whole “how can you measure temperature? Measured every single molecule” (which, oddly enough, doesn’t apply when GF doesn’t want it to apply):

The temperature of the solar “surface” (the photosphere) can be defined in several ways. Application of the Stefan-Boltzman Law (energy emitted per second per unit area = σT4) yields a value of 5,800 K. Wien’s law, which relates the peak intensity in the spectrum to the temperature of the emitting material yields T = 6,350 K. This discrepancy between the two values results for two reasons. First, the emitted light comes from different depths in the photosphere and thus is a mixture of emission characteristics of a range of temperatures; thus, the solar spectrum is not an ideal black body spectrum. Second, absorption features significantly alter the spectrum from the shape of a black body spectrum.


So it seems like, despite not having measured ANY of the sun’s atmosphere, scientists still seem to be able to calculate a temperature of the sun.

Is this supposed be a response to something? It’s clear you’ve learned how to cut and paste, but other than that, why do you think it’s relevant?

Evans has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to deny AGW and rubbish the IPCC and the scientists by the fossil fuel lobby in the past three years alone.

He never reads anything that would cast doubt on the well-oiled heels of the paid denialists like Evans who have recieved hundreds of thousands (up to millions) of dollars from the fossil fuel industry intent on squeezing out all the profit possible from fossil fuels.

He supports them because he’s as venal as they are.

why does gofigure accept satellites can measure global temperatures but insists that there is no such thing as a global temperature?

Why does gofigure insist that the IPCC doesn’t mention satellite data when they include it in their reports?

Why does gofigure insist that AGW is just a scam to rake in money but insists that any money donated to get people to deny AGW is irrelevant?


Because he’s a denialist.

It’s not worth responding to most of your juvenile diatribe. (Are you by chance a teenie bopper?)

If the IPCC is now recognizing satellite readings, then you should have a good look because it doesn’t buttress the quotes you’ve provided of things happening “faster”. Flatline temps for 10 years, continual reduction of temperature increase by even the warmists, now down to .15C per decade (and that’s a big exaggeration.)

There’s only one issue here- the science. You can babble on, but you’re quite obviously not capable to providing any evidence that man has an impact on temperature.

All you’re really doing is talking about weather. Nice neighborly talk, but not relevant to the only relevant issue. What part if any, of warming is being brought on by man?

You can’t answer or rebut so you ignore. Again you display the MO of the denialist: ignore, lie and repeat the stale canard.

You’re a moron, aren’t you?

“If the IPCC is now recognizing satellite readings”


But YOU “knew” they didn’t because Evans (a self confessed liar) said they didn’t.

Now that you KNOW that they did, you’re trying to make out that you and he weren’t lying little scumbags all along.

“then you should have a good look because it doesn’t buttress the quotes you’ve provided of things happening “faster””

I did have a good look. You’d better have a good look at what I said:

The temperature since 2008 is strongly up.

The satellites show global warming.

RSS satellite data:

2005 March: -0.795
2011 March: -0.162

Therefore the satellite temperatures I have pointed out show that the warming is still hugely significant and upward, unlike your continued fabricated lies attest.

All you’re really doing is talking about weather. But you never consider this when it’s YOU talking about it, do you.

Another denialist MO.

Swap each and every argument to fit your preferred conclusion with absolutely no shame: the mark of a pathological liar.

Look at this graph:

The temperature since 2008 is strongly up.

The satellites show global warming.

RSS satellite data:

2005 March: -0.795
2011 March: -0.162

A warming trend of +0.1055 C per year!

Here in commercial land:

or here in government:

YOU decide!

He’s certainly been an eye into the denialist method, hasn’t he, though?

Ignore all evidence.
Make up facts.
Repeat ad nauseum.

Scientists from Queen’s and Carleton universities head a national multidisciplinary research team that has uncovered startling new evidence of the destructive impact of global climate change on North America’s largest Arctic delta.

“One of the most ominous threats of global warming today is from rising sea levels, which can cause marine waters to inundate the land,” says the team’s co-leader, Queen’s graduate student Joshua Thienpont. “The threat is especially acute in polar regions, where shrinking sea ice increases the risk of storm surges.”

By studying growth rings from coastal shrubs and lake sediments in the Mackenzie Delta region of the Northwest Territories – the scene of a widespread and ecologically destructive storm surge in 1999 – the researchers have discovered that the impact of these salt-water surges is unprecedented in the 1,000-year history of the lake.

Source: “Striking ecological impact on Canada’s Arctic coastline linked to global climate change,” Queen’s University, May 16, 2011

A commentary below, by the Heartland Institute on a recent “scientific” proclamation by the NRC covering “global warming”. As it turns out, I’m probably a better informed - and clearly less biased - student of global warming than the NRC group involved in this news release, and that’s truly sad. That’s why it’s important to figure out for yourself what’s going on. Neither is there enough time to bother figuring out the agenda of the players behind it. Doesn’t really matter- they’re wrong in any case.

“The media is having a field day claiming the NRC report provides objective proof that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The Washington Post editorial board, for example, writes in a May 15 editorial that the NRC report shows ‘climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.’

“In reality, the NRC report is the opinion of a mere 21 authors – most of whom have no formal training in climate science, and nearly all of whom had a longstanding record of global warming activism prior to being selected to serve on the panel.

“For example, the chairman of the NRC panel is a nuclear engineer with no formal training in climate science, and the vice chairman served for years as a top staffer for the Environmental Defense Fund environmental activist group. Other panelists include staffers for WE ACT for Environmental Justice and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. These are far from objective voices or qualified climate scientists.

“Far from providing objective, expert proof of a global warming crisis, the NRC report provides objective proof that – despite their grandiose-sounding names – the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council are more interested in political agendas than objective, fact-based science.”

James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow – Environment Policy
The Heartland Institute

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group’s President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:

“For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland’s corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors–out of a list of hundreds–was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors.”

It has also claimed that “by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue.”

Following the compilation of this SourceWatch article and articles on other websites, Heartland posted a list of responses to what it claimed was “misinformation” about the group. On its funding it stated that “in 2007 it received 71 percent of its income from foundations, 16 percent from corporations, and 11 percent from individuals. No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget … ExxonMobil has not contributed to Heartland since 2006. Indeed, gifts from all energy companies - coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear - combined did not exceed 5 percent of Heartland’s budget in 2007.”[20] (Heartland states that its 2007 revenue was approximately $5.2 million.[20] Based on this Heartland statement, in 2007 foundations provided approximately $3.69 million, corporations contributed $832,000 and approximately 1,600 individuals[21] Energy companies – “coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear” – contributed approximately 5% or around $260,000.)

‘The media is having a field day claiming the NRC report provides objective proof that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The Washington Post editorial board, for example, writes in a May 15 editorial that the NRC report shows ‘climate-change deniers, in other words, are willfully ignorant, lost in wishful thinking, cynical or some combination of the three.’

Oh! Dear! More spin.

You will find that this report is from the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) and the list of contributors can be found here:

Note their affiliations and areas of expertise and keep in mind my comments about the multidisciplinary nature of climate study.

By contrast James Taylor your Heartland champion is a lawyer. Now there is a real problem. If you don’t get it GoFigure then go figure.

The title of the following makes my point clear and the article demonstrates, yet again, the mendacious nature of GoFigure’s arguments.

National Academy of Sciences slams climate disinformation campaign, flawed media coverage
WashPost editorial: Climate change denial becomes harder to justify


May 16, 2011

Last week I blogged on the major new climate report from the National Academy of Sciences, which called on nation to “substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions” starting ASAP.

A commenter pointed out a paragraph I missed buried on page 35 in the brief discussion of how “Many factors complicate and impede public understanding of climate change”:

Most people rely on secondary sources for information, especially the mass media; and some of these sources are affected by concerted campaigns against policies to limit CO2 emissions, which promote beliefs about climate change that are not well-supported by scientific evidence. U.S. media coverage sometimes presents aspects of climate change that are uncontroversial among the research community as being matters of serious scientific debate. Such factors likely play a role in the increasing polarization of public beliefs about climate change, along lines of political ideology, that has been observed in the United States.

Wow (considering the source).

The NAS is pretty darn bland and conservative as evidence by 90% of the contents of this report. So this is a hard slam against the mass media for being suckered by the fossil-fuel-funded anti-scientific disinformation campaign and generally miscovering the story of the century.

And for those in the anti-scientist and/or breakthrough bunch who primarily blame the victims for both the disinformation campaign and the resulting polarization, the U.S. National Academy is calling BS on you.


Of course GF you won’t bother reading down this far before exploding all over.

Confuscious say:

“People who pat themselves on the back all day likely to tear rotator cuff.”


Anyone want to bet that gobby here won’t bother reading ANY of it?

The Heartland Institute has a long history of shilling for corporate lepers. Since 1993, it has received $190,000 from Philip Morris USA and maintains a smokers’ rights section on its website called “The Smoker’s Lounge.” Its global warming section is more active. It features a handy list of denial talking points (“Scores of peer-reviewed studies contradict global warming alarmism”) and links to full-page ads Heartland has run in the Washington Post decrying the media for hyping “false claims of impending ‘planetary emergencies.’”

Heartland, which has received $670,000 from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998, views itself as a bulwark against a leftist domino effect. “Fighting global warming extremism is essential,” its website says, “if we are to stop a resurgence of radical environmentalism and left liberalism on a wide range of other public policy issues.”

Source: The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial – No. 7: The Heartland Institute,Mother Jones, Dec 4, 2009

But why not instead find out who at the NRC was involved in that dogma, and find out what their credentials are. (Since you are not competent to understand and deal with the science.)

What YOU have is dogma. Note how you twist and change your argument with no regard to coherency:

GF: Satellite temperatures are flat since 2005
Me: UAH shows significant upward warming from 2008 to date. RSS shows severe warming since 2005
GF: That’s weather!
Me: The temperature over the last 30 years is significantly up
GF: But it’s not between 1998 and 2009

Note how he uses weather to define his argument, but refuses to accept similar data in refutation.

YOURS is the dogma.

1) “Look over there!”
2) Run away
3) yell “Poopy head” over your shoulder
4) Claim “I WON!”

You, Go Figure,

a) deny that global temperatures can be measured
b) insist that Evans is right when he says satellites have measured global temperatures
c) insist that the global temperature is cooling

You cannot understand even simple maths, let alone the science. So you complain that others don’t understand the science. Dunning-Kruger.

Life on this post has moved on a pace since I last logged on. Lots of information; too much for me absorb in a short time. However, I will do my best. Thanks to you all.

Thought to share a thought scanning through the comments and it’s related to my work as a program/product manager having worked with companies turning research into products for many years.

For great research to be useful and successful it needs to go through a long and exacting process of business evaluation, regulatory, Q&A, design, engineering, manufacture, marketing etc. Research never, in my experience, makes any marketable product/service without that process. There are a few pure research companies; pharmaceuticals have some that sell their research. However, their research is purchased by companies who then put it through their product management process.

This process gives prospective customers confidence that the product is what it’s sold to be (of course there are exceptions so please do not go that route).

To give another example close to my heart. I dislike flying and need great assurance to be flying at 35k feet. I do know that the plane was designed to extremely high engineering standards to pass regulations. I know it’s maintained in the same way by specifically trained engineers who follow exacting procedures and then work is signed off as approved. I know that when a plane is sold the maintenance history is the highest selling point and has to be approved. This goes some way towards my risk assessment to take a ride on the plane.

I hope you can see where I’m going with this. There’s great research but it’s going directly to media and politicians. It’s missing regulatory, Q&A, design, engineering etc. I know you will probably point to the IPCC but for whatever reason it has definitely lost public trust.

In my case this lack of trusted process is probably the greatest cause of my questioning. Does this make any sense to you? And BTW I’m not a denier or a conservative.

Thanks again for this opportunity……

Those things are missing from denialist arguments but are in evidence in plenty for the IPCC and accepted climate theory that leads to AGW under our current actions.

“There’s great research but it’s going directly to media and politicians.”

Patrick Michaels gets paid by the fossil fuel $16m just to state that AGW is false. Heartland Institute is paid by the fossil fuel industry to host papers. Blogrolls abound for denialist arguments. The entirety of Fox is dedicated to denial of AGW.

Where is the IPCC media budget in comparison, titas?

“It’s missing regulatory, Q&A, design, engineering etc. ”

The denialists have missed regulatory goals:

Lied to congress:

And makes up stuff:

And insist they know more about the published papers than the authors do:

Yet the CRU have been persecuted:
and again:

yet they’re exonerated by independent boards time:
and time:

Q&A doesn’t exist for denialist arguments:
with depressing regularity

But it wasn’t “the Autidors” who found a typo in the IPCC WG2 paper, it was the IPCC scientists themselves:

The source code for a GCM is designed and well written and been available for years

but denialists insisted no such model was available, it was all kept hidden:

And the public trust has remained on the side of the science:

The one lacking design, Q&A, oversight and support is the denialist screed.

Your actions say you are. You (like every other denier) want to believe you’re a skeptic, but your complaint that the IPCC and climate science they report lack oversight, regulation, etc is laughable and you have NOT ONCE treated with skepticism ANYTHING that denies AGW is a problem or we have to start doing something about it.

1. The action of declaring something to be untrue: “she shook her head in denial”.
2. The refusal of something requested or desired.

Definition for denialism:
Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: it is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event.