A Scary Halloween for the Climate Denial Industry

Fri, 2009-10-30 13:42Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

A Scary Halloween for the Climate Denial Industry

The amount of coverage we’ve received since the launch of Jim and Richard’s new book, Climate Cover Up, has been amazing.

The fact that we’re just getting warmed up is likely putting a scare into the think tankers, scientists-for-hire and fossil fuel front groups; from the emails we’ve been getting from such folks so far, I have no doubt we’re putting the scare in them.

I thought I would do a quick “monster” scary list of all the coverage so far to wish all of our supporters a happy Halloween and scare the pants off our critics:

[PS: for those of you yet to review Climate Cover Up, let me know when you do and I will put it out on a few of our “monster” Twitter, Facebook, Digg and StumbleUpon accounts]

Climate Cover-Up: Blockbuster New Book Exposes Anatomy of Denial

The Invention of Lying about Climate Change

Climate Cover-Up / The Crusade to Deny Global Warming 

The great Climate Cover-Up

Weekend Opinionator: Are Americans Cooling on Global Warming?

Climate Cover Up reveals how zombies are made

Did you hear the joke about business and global warming?

Climate Cover Up: the crusade to deny global warming

Plain evil and very wrong

Climate Cover-Up

Truth Squad’ to target climate-change journalists at COP15

Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam

Number of Americans who believe in climate change drops, survey shows

Local authors take on climate change deniers

The Climate Change Mythbuster

New book outlines the PR effort behind climate-change skeptics

Blog Action Day: Read DeSmogBlog

The Yes Men Hoax is Nothing Compared to the 20-Year Hoax by Fossil Fuel Companies

Barack Obama in new global warming fight

Exposing The Lying Behind The Fight Against Climate Change Action

Trick or Treat for Climate Change


My Top Ten List of Notable Environmental Sites on the Web – Check Them Out!

Climate Cover-Up

Astroturf. It’s not just for smoking anymore

Twilight for the Age of Stupid

Great Climate Cover Up Review in the Sun Today

PR Executive James Hoggan on “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”

Astroturf King Jack Bonner’s Long History of Deceitful “Grassroots” Lobbying

Win a Copy of Climate Cover Up

Climate Cover Up: The Second Extract

Update: Gesammelte Leseempfehlungen zum Thema Klima-und Umweltschutz

Happy Blog Action Day for Climate

Greener Ideal Giveaway: Win A Copy of Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan

Climate Cover-Up: A (Brief) Review

Climate Cover-Up / The Crusade to Deny Global Warming 

Currently reading: Climate Cover Up

Climate Cover-Up

Deconstructing Public Opinion

A Week of Hilarity + Hijinks From The Yes Men Delights The Blogosphere

Big Oil’s Big Buy: Climate Change Denial

Lord Monckton: Who is Al Gore Nemesis, Lord Monckton?

Great Climate Cover Up Review in the Sun Today

New Book - Climate Cover-Up

Climate Cover-Up

New book by Vancouver author details ‘crusade’ to deny global warming

Lord Monckton: An Inconvenient Brit

How to be a Jerk

The art of causing confusion about climate change

Following the money: The Fraser Institute’s tobacco papers

CIimate Cover-Up - new book exposes Big Oil and corporate cover-up to avoid action against climate change

James Hoggan: Astroturf King Jack Bonner’s Long History of Deceitful “Grassroots” Lobbying

Affable Linky

Great Climate Cover Up Review in the Sun Today

Climate Cover-Up

The New Bankruptcy, Astroturfing Climate Change

El ejecutivo experto en relaciones públicas James Hoggan habla sobre su libro “El encubrimiento climático: la cruzada para negar el calentamiento global”

PR Executive James Hoggan on “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”

The Environment, Climate Change, and Contact Centers

Amy Goodman: Climate change is no trick

B.C. author fighting climate-change denial

Fore-Warned is Fore-Armed

Trick or Treat for Climate Change

Climate Kool-Aid at YubaNet

We’re all on the take from Big Oil

Stephen Harper and the Fraser Institute Wage War on Climate Science

20 Oct 2009: Today’s Democracy Now!

Book draws attention to climate change ‘coverup’ by fossil fuel industry

New at the Library October 21, 2009

Daniel Cudmore no “tapete verde” em Vancouver

Explaining plummeting belief in anthropogenic climate change

Peter Foster: The weather exploiters

Barack Obama in new global warming fight

Terence Corcoran: Climatism and the new green industrial state

Another day, another survey

NOCHE DE BRUJAS Y EL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO -

New industry springs up to deflect public concern

US Chamber’s Long History of Killing Clean Energy Policy

Review on RealClimate: History of Climate Change Denial

Credibility in a Bewildered World

Noche de brujas y el cambio climático

I am a global warming skeptics, where is my money from big oil? I am waiting!

Jacobson and Delucchi, Half baked at best

Barack Obama in new global warming fight – guardian.co.uk

Global warming PR suffers blowback

Climate change notes 2

Daniel Cudmore no “tapete verde” em Vancouver (Felix)

Climate calamities

Muzzling Climate Debate

New book by Vancouver author details ‘crusade’ to deny global warming

Blog Action Day: Communication and Change

James Hoggan: Chamber of Commerce: A Long History of Killing Clean Energy Policy


Previous Comments

The counter attackers in Canada were savage on this article:
http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=171914

TVMoB himself wrote back. He doesnt like being called a liar.

Take a look at this. Comments on the attacks on the journalist, et al?

There is only one and that is promulgated by the Alarmists who would have you believe that increased CO2 = increased temperature = disaster (unless we act now!).

Well Professor Richard Lindzen has a new paper based on real-World data, rather than the GIGO of climate models.

In summary all the GCMs predict that as global temperature increases, radiation escaping from the upper atmosphere will decrease because it is being trapped by CO2 and water vapour (which increases with increasing temperature) i.e. positive feedback.

What does real World measurements (accumulated over 20 years) say?
The exact opposite. As temperature rises the amount of radiation escaping into space increases i.e. negative feedback.

What this means is that doubling of CO2 is not going to produce several degrees of temperature increase, but ONE (1).

Anyway, don’t take my word for it- just read the paper. Now boys and girls, pay particular attention to Figure 2.

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

Rejoice! The World is safe!

“the Alarmists who would have you believe that increased CO2 = increased temperature”

If you can point me to a published, peer-reviewed scientific text that demonstrates experimentally that the above is not true, I’ll join the denier camp.

the world is “safe”

even if the whole climate thing went away we have plenty of other catastrophic things to worry about … and when it comes to impending disaster, most of us can only deal with one at a time.

Which to choose?

CO2 disaster theory has an advantages over such things as energy and food shortage, new super bugs, global jihad with new and improved nuclear terrorism and economic meltdowns and if all that fails we can still get hit by a giant space rock.

The advantage of CO2 disaster theory is that we have the appearance of the possibility or the daydream of controlling the whole thing - so CO2 it is.

No. It’s just that you can’t read.
Check what I said carefully and you will note that I said that “doubling of CO2 will cause ONE (1) degree of warming”.

Join the Denier camp!

Phlogiston wrote: “Check what I said carefully and you will note …”

I guess there is one thing I have learned from the deniers: I quoted you correctly, I just took it out of context.

Dennis W. Rather than shoot the messenger, why not take the time to look at the science behind Lindzen and Choi’s paper?
It is incontrovertable.
Why- because it uses real world data to prove, yes PROVE, that positive water-vapour feedback is nonsense.

According to the IPCC [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf] “Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies, and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change.“

However a 2004 NASA study using satellite humidity data found that “The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity” resulting in overestimation of temperature increase. [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html]

Roger Pielke also provides a brief summary of the issue [http://climatesci.org/2007/12/18/climate-metric-reality-check-3-evidence-for-a-lack-of-water-vapor-feedback-on-the-regional-scale/] as well as a link to a research paper that states: “atmospheric temperature and water vapor trends do not follow the conjecture of constant relative humidity”.

Finally in “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions”, by Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, 2007 - International Journal of Climatology. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions] compared the climate models to observations from satellites and balloons (1979-2004).The models exhibit the CO2 theory characteristic of most warming occurring in the troposphere. However, the satellite and balloon based observations show warming only at the surface of the earth. The report stated: “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. … On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.”

Now why not actually read this before engaging in the usual ad hom. attack?

you wrote: “why not actually read this before engaging in the usual ad hom. attack?”

I did not attack you. I challenged the scientific assertion you made that said CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. To quote exactly: “the Alarmists who would have you believe that increased CO2 = increased temperature.”

I believe “increased CO2 = increased temperature.” You can agree with that, and we can then move on to your next scientific assertion. Or you can try to convince me that I am incorrect with regard to CO2’s effect on temperature. But I take the science one agreed-upon fact at a time.

Really? “I guess there is one thing I have learned from the deniers: I quoted you correctly, I just took it out of context.”

OK, let’s look at what we agree on
1) Increased CO2 WILL cause a linited amount of warming (doubling of CO2
= approx 1C)
2) The World has been warming since the end of the L.I.A- the coldest period of at least the last 1000 years (even Mann’s Hockey Stick shows this!)

Now what we don’t.
1) There is no evince that current warming is “unprecedented”
2) There is no direct evidence (and note correlation does not show cause and effect) that the temperature increase over the last 100 years is down to CO2. In fact Total Solar Radiation gives a better correlation.
3) All the scary +4C, +5C, +6C +7C temperature increases come out of GCMs that all include a positive water vapour feedback. This has been totally dicredited.
Thus the IPCC 2007 Report Chapter 9 – Understanding and Attributing Climate Change [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf] provides a climate model based simulation of the expected CO2 “spatial signature” of all forcings including anthropogenic CO2.
However, once again, a study of actual data from radiosonde data nothing of the sort. [http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf].

Once again, I urge you to look at the DATA, not the “X-Box Models”

With regard to “attacking,” note that when I wrote “I have learned from the deniers” I did not mention you. I will mention Mark Marano as a denier whose technique I copied. But – let’s forgive the ad hominems between us; We are now discussing science, which is what I want to do. I am not a natural scientists and have not stepped foot into a laboratory in over 30 years, but I am willing to admit when I understand something, and when I do not. So, what you write at the outset, I do not understand, but here’s where you can elaborate.

You write: “Increased CO2 WILL cause a linited [sic] amount of warming (doubling of CO2 = approx 1C)”

I assume you mean “limited.” So we do agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, I’m not sure, Ceteris paribus, I agree with your quantities here, nor do I know what you mean (in scientific terms) by the word “limited.” Obviously, CO2 itself is limited to 1 million ppm in the atmosphere (I think we can agree 1 million ppm means the extinction of life on Earth), and if there’s an upper limit to the Earth’s temperature, I’ll bet the Earth will be uninhabitable before we get close to it (see Venus, for example).

Second, I have no idea what you mean by “doubling” (doubling of CO2 = approx 1C). That obviously needs to be quantified a lot better. Please do this. 200 ppm to 400 ppm is a doubling. So is 500 ppm to 1000 ppm. So is 500000 ppm to 1000000 ppm (see above: end of life as we know it). Right now we are at 385ppm, but 100 years ago it was below 300 (the increase has been measured at about 30%). I doubt that the difference between 200 to 400 ppm (a doubling) and 500 to 1000 ppm (another doubling) have the same effect on atmospheric temperature (ceteris paribus, again), which you characterise as “approx 1C.” Please elaborate.

I’ll get to “The World has been warming since the end of the L.I.A” after we agree on the details to the above. Right now it is sufficient to say that the world has also been “warming” since the end of the Big Ice Age as well.

Dennis, sorry to take so long to get back- busy week- teaching my students about the myths of “Climate Change”
And it is working. By simply asking them to produce presentations on such topics as “The Maldives are not drowning” they have gone out, read the literature and come back converts. To skepticism. Not one now believes that climate change is dangerous.

And now to your question about doubling CO2.
Doubling of CO2 is usually taken (See IPCC Reports)as an increase in atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial levels (280ppm) to 560ppm.
Again, according to the IPCC this will lead to about 1.6C increase in Global temperature. Not harmful and most likely beneficial.

It is the positive water vapour feedback, lovingly and fraudulently, programmed into GCMs that gives figures of up to 6C.

This feedback has now been comprehensively disproved by real-World data.
See my previous posts.

Now for 1 million ppm CO2. That is 100% CO2 and will be lethal, like any other gas ay 100%, including Oxygen.

uh oh, phloge has students - thats going to set AGW back a little bit

It’s probably too much to hope that he might include on his list of sources and references this website:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

I’m just sayin’ … Fern

We can all hope!

You write: “… according to the IPCC (Which section? What page?) this [an increase in atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial levels (280ppm) to 560ppm (again – source?)] will lead to about 1.6C increase in Global temperature.” So, your previous “approx 1C” is now 1.6%. That’s a 60% difference, which I find significant. So, please give me some real scientific sources for this assertion.

Then, in reference to this increase you write: “Not harmful and most likely beneficial.” This sounds like an editorial opinion of yours, not the result of any scientific research, so I dismiss it unless you can provide sources.

Finally, you write: “It is the positive water vapour feedback, lovingly and fraudulently, programmed into GCMs that gives figures of up to 6C. This feedback has now been comprehensively disproved by real-World data. See my previous posts.”

Have you got scientific evidence to back up your assertion of fraud here?

Finally, I don’t buy for a second the “See my previous posts” reference. Unless you are claiming that you are a climate scientist and your previous posts consitute published scientific research, I demand references.

Dnnis, if you can’t be bothered to read your own Holy Book (IPCC Report), why should I bother to quote its chapter and verse?

However, you go on to state “I don’t buy for a second the “See my previous posts” reference. Unless you are claiming that you are a climate scientist and your previous posts consitute published scientific research, I demand references.”

Well that’s fine by me/ My previous post, on this very topic contained numerous references, which you cleraly overlooked in your religious zeal.

Here they are, together with relevant text.

Thus the IPCC 2007 Report Chapter 9 – Understanding and Attributing Climate Change [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf] provides a climate model based simulation of the expected CO2 “spatial signature” of all forcings including anthropogenic CO2.
However, once again, a study of actual data from radiosonde data nothing of the sort. [http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf].

According to the IPCC [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf] “Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies, and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change.“
However a 2004 NASA study using satellite humidity data found that “The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity” resulting in overestimation of temperature increase. [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html]
Roger Pielke also provides a brief summary of the issue [http://climatesci.org/2007/12/18/climate-metric-reality-check-3-evidence-for-a-lack-of-water-vapor-feedback-on-the-regional-scale/] as well as a link to a research paper that states: “atmospheric temperature and water vapor trends do not follow the conjecture of constant relative humidity”.
Finally in “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions”, by Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer, 2007 - International Journal of Climatology. [http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions] compared the climate models to observations from satellites and balloons (1979-2004).The models exhibit the CO2 theory characteristic of most warming occurring in the troposphere. However, the satellite and balloon based observations show warming only at the surface of the earth. The report stated: “Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. … On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.”

And before you ask again, I am not a climate “scientist”, because there ain’t no such thing.

You write:

“Dnnis, if you can’t be bothered to read your own Holy Book (IPCC Report)…. …you cleraly overlooked in your religious zeal.”

My Comment: I have read the IPCC report, and this is not “religious zeal” on my part, it is reading and understanding science. And I am trying to stick to science. Your “Holy Book” and “religious zeal” comments border on the ad hominem and I do not what to continue this conversation unless you retract them. Please, let’s stick to science.

Two general comment from me: Throughout your comments here, you seem to be focusing on MODELS and the issue of HOW MUCH of a temperature change should be predicted by them, not that they DO FORECAST an increase. That’s the impression I get. Please let me know if I have stated your position correctly. If you’re arguing that they are worthless, or something entirely different, I’d like to know that up front.

I am not a model person and have never claimed to be. My focus is on the data-driven measurables. Which leads to my second comment: You have addressed nothing with regard to historic data. Earlier on, we agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Will you now agree with me the three following historical facts?

1. The Earth’s temperature increased approximately 1C in the 20th century.
2. Global annual fossil fuel emissions are approximately 6.4 gigatons a year.
3. Because burning fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases (primarily CO2), this means that every year human activity adds gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Your reaction?

Do I sgree?
1) No, temperature increase is about 0.8C in 20th Century (AlGore/IPCC own figures)
2) Yes
3) Yes

Does 2 and 3 matter?
NO http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Phlogiston,

You write:

“Does 2 and 3 matter?
NO
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html”

Your sources are quite bizarre. Why do you believe that the Blanchette Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute has anything to do with climate research?

By the way, did DeSmogBlog send a copy of the book to Rex Murphy? He’s going on today about global warming as a religion… the usual tripe. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/crucifix-out-warming-in/article1354734/

Yes there is.
No it is not accelerating (if anything, slowing).
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/sea-level/sl_noib_global-www.png/image_view_fullscreen
(Data from Topex satellite)

Comes to about 32 cms(12”)/100years. Which is roughly what it has been for the last 5000 years.