Dennis Avery may have done the fact-challenged (yes, again) WaPo columnist George Will one better by actually admitting he’d “misstated” that CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were declining (when they were, in fact, quite clearly rising), but the remainder of his column was so error-filled that I thought it deserved another look.
Take the first half of the piece, in which he approvingly cites Australian – and Oxford-trained – research physicist Tom Quirk to make the jaw-dropping argument that natural climate variability, and not anthropogenic activity, is to blame for elevated atmosphere CO2 levels. A quick look at Avery’s list of citations informs us that Quirk’s article appeared in a recent issue of Energy and Environment, a “peer-reviewed” journal curated by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, which does not inspire great confidence in its scientific rigor.
The fabled “hockey stick” - Michael Mann's graph showing the last decade to be the warmest in a 1,000 years - has re-emerged, stronger and longer than ever.
In a peer-reviewed paper published today in the online version of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Mann and six other scientists show that current warming is the most severe in more than 1,300 years - 1,700 if you accept still-controversial data drawns from tree rings.
Researchers confirm that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, and, if the climate scientists include the somewhat controversial data derived from tree-ring records, the warming is anomalous for at least 1700 years.
Deniers Obsess about Old Science, Hiding from Corroborative New Research
In a desperate effort to distract attention from the real issue, Steve McIntyre and one of his more loquacious acolytes have renewed their attack on the fabled hockey stick - cheering themselves hoarse over their one, small “victory” in climate science debate, even while the science itself continues to pass them by.
Appended below is a little background on that debate as well as eight other graphs (supported by eight other scholarly papers), all of which independently corroborate Mann's work - and all of which the deniers have ignored with their undivided attention.
Some of the most prominent deniers in the game have made themselves famous criticizing Michael Mann's work. But here's the deal: Michael Mann DOES the work. He's not a journalist or politician (Christ Monckton); he's not an Philip Morris and Exxon Mobil consultant (Fred Singer); he's not a stock promoter and amateur statistician (Steve McIntyre). He is an Associate Professor in the Department of Meteorology and Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University and the rarest thing in the very public debate about climate change: someone who knows what he's talking about.
“An issue as important as global warming should not descend into a shouting match between the faithful and the heretical.”
That was the subhead in the print version of Jack Mintz’s March 17 column in Canadian Business and, up to that point, he was making pretty good sense. But then Mintz took to shouting about the heretical Dr. David Suzuki, a man who continues to infuriate certain segments of Canadian society and, especially, Canadian media by honouring science over the theology of unlimited Alberta oil exploitation.
Climate scientist Michael Mann runs down the list of bad global warming news: The world is spewing greenhouse gases at a faster rate. Summer Arctic sea ice is at record lows. The ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica are melting quicker than expected.
Having struggled valiantly over the years to provide a home for any writer or “scientist” who will challenge the global climate change consensus, Canada's National Post has started a series on “The Deniers,” people who the Post would laud for trying to undermine Canada's commitment to climate change policy.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.