Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ClimateDenierResponse DASH Final

ClimateDenierResponse DASH Final

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27|Likes:
Published by jdash9
Below is my response to a contrarian/denier essay sent to me by someone who wanted help in responding. Almost every assertion in this essay is either wrong or irrelevant.
Below is my response to a contrarian/denier essay sent to me by someone who wanted help in responding. Almost every assertion in this essay is either wrong or irrelevant.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: jdash9 on Sep 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/16/2012

pdf

text

original

 
A DENIER ESSAY, WITH REMARKS
Jan W. Dash, PhD 
September 2012
 
INTRODUCTION
: Below is my response to a contrarian/denier essay sent tome by someone who wanted help in responding. Almost every assertion in thisessay is wrong or irrelevant. I do not know the identity of the author. It is atactic to use pseudo-science like this denier essay by right wing media and fossilfuel interests to confuse people and oppose sensible climate risk managementaction. This is as unethical and immoral as previous disinformation by thetobacco industry against the scientific evidence that tobacco is harmful. We mustnot have future generations say, of us:
"They refused used to learn" 
or
"they knew but did not act." 
 
References:http://www.skepticalscience.com/; moretechnical:http://realclimate.org/; general:http://climate.uu-uno.org/.
DENIER ESSAY WITH MY REMARKS IN BRACKETS[
red italics
] 
It's clear [
wrong; nothing in this essay is clear 
]now that a small and very influentialgroup of people (AKA 'that hockey team'[
there is no “hockey team”; author incorrectlywants to associate research into the last 1000 years of climate with the much wider bodyof climate research
]) fabricated data[
wrong, independent investigations showed no datawere “fabricated”, yet deniers continue to parrot this false and malicious accusation
],controlled the peer review process[
 false, peer review provides general quality control by peers and is not “controlled” by anybody
], attacked critics[
“critics” is the wrong word  for deniers and “attacks” imply that the deniers have credibility
]and even critical publications[
wrong –occasional contrarian publications have contributed nothing “critical”. On the contrary published contrarian papers often left a trail littered with lowquality and abuse of the peer review process. Still, reference to some contrarian papersdid appear in the latest 2007 IPCC science report. Most contrarian papers are not actually “published” at all, but simply appear through right-wing think tanks or right-wing media and denier blogs
], bullied opponents[
 false, deniers are impervious tocriticism, and the bullying goes the other way with right-wing politicians paid by the fossil fuel industry (like Inhofe and Barton) attacking climate scientists; even some deaththreats were sent in emails to climate scientists
]and conspired to hide data[
wrong - noconspiracy; no data were “hidden” and on the contrary most data are in the publicdomain as far as legally possible
]and resist FOIA requests[
denier FOIA requests arelargely irresponsible fishing expeditions of scientific incompetents, right-wing lawyers,or politicians looking for attack material; these requests do not advance science and moreover waste the time of scientists - who nonetheless have largely complied withthem
]. They happen to be in charge of two of the world's 4 major temperature records(HadCRU and GISS)[
 false, these are independent bodies
], were all recruited for [
the IPCC uses hundreds of experts to write the reports
]and very influential in the IPCC'sreports[
the main reports are written a few pages of text at a time by experts in the specific area of the text 
]as well as the Hockey Stick fabrication[
 false - the “HockeyStick” was not fabricated, it is the output of many independent investigations
]and thesubsequent coverup proxy reconstructions[
nothing was “covered up”
]that use the samedata and the same flawed methods[
the only flawed methods were used by contrarians: he
 
may be referring to a mathematical technique called principal component analysis, whichwas incorrectly applied by contrarians, and is in any case irrelevant 
]. As anyone withtwo brain cells to bang together would know[
insulting 
], it's difficult to get a consensuson anything that's not proven[
he misunderstands science: science “proves” nothing;“scientific proof” is a label used by contrarian deniers to attack science by demanding impossible precision
]by repeatable experiment[
we are now performing a huge“experiment” on the earth that is indeed not repeatable and which we will regret. However there is information - we look at geologic history to get an idea of the impactsand progression of current climate change; that is where “350 ppm” originates. Physics-based climate models provide a laboratory for testing 
]between even 10 people[
irrelevant 
]let alone 'the scientific community'[
we do not need general agreement of the“scientific community” including people that have no expertise in climate, any more thancancer research needs agreement of non-cancer-experts like dentists; nonetheless many scientific societies have issued statements in agreement with the fact that recent global warming exists and humans are largely to blame, and AFAIK no scientific society hasissued a statement to the contrary
]. There are thousands of scientists[
he may be referring to the flawed “Oregon petition” issued under false pretenses and mostly signed by peoplewith only Bachelor degrees, all of whom deniers insist are “scientists”
]that haveexpressed skepticism at the alarmist[
“alarmist” is a right-wing term applied to anyonewho asserts climate change is a problem
]view[
not a “view” - the increasingly severeimpacts of climate change are being reported weekly by reputable groups of researchersaround the world from laboratories and universities
]of climate change, and the IPCC'sreports, which are a proxy for this 'consensus'[
the IPCC reports mostly summarize published literature
], represent no such consensus at all[
 false, the IPCC reportsconstitute the consensus of the experts of the present state of knowledge on climate
]. Thechapter summaries are written without acknowledging objections that are buried in thereport[
 false, the chapter summaries fairly summarize the chapter contents
], the SPM isthen written by bureaucrats not scientists[
 false - the scientists write the SPM. Thebureaucrats have to agree line by line on the SPM. In a few cases politicians have tried to change – usually water down - some wording; any wording changes requireagreement by the scientists
]and the chapter summaries are then re-written in the absenceof all earlier contributors to agree with the SPM[
totally misleading – only occasional and minor rewordings have occurred AFAIK 
]- this is done by the lead coordinating authorswho are selected in secret[
lead authors are among the highest recognized experts in the field 
]by the IPCC[
this attack is a complete distortion of the IPCC process, which is verytransparent 
]. This is not a consensus view and cannot even be called a majority view[
wrong and irrelevant 
]. More than 30% of their meticulously peer reviewed sources inthe last report have been traced to Greenpeace and (the grand-daddy of Big Green) TheWorld Wildlife Fund[
totally false; he is referring to a small number of grey literature papers in Volume II - which is in any case not the science volume I 
]which has basicallyco-opted the IPCC[
 false, the IPCC is not “co-opted”
]. And what is there a 'consensus'on? The few small polls that have to exclude all but the most zealous alarmists[
totally false, there are filters to get the climate scientists who are in the field and have recently published in peer-reviewed climate journals, see Mary Zimmerman’s thesis “TheConsensus on the Consensus”
]to reach one find that 'the globe is warming and man is acontributor'[
there is overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that global 
 
warming exists and that humans are causing it; even the fossil-fuel Koch funded “BEST” study basically came to the same conclusion
]. No consensus on how much man hascontributed[
attribution studies say most of recent global warming is caused by humans
],no consensus on how much warming is natural[
no natural cause of recent global warming exists; the sun has not been heating up
]and no consensus on how muchwarming their [
 sic
]will be[
 yes there are uncertainties in future warming, and theseuncertainties are documented and presented up front 
]. In other words, they agree on theunimportant part of the theory and not on the important part[
nonsense; the really“important part” is to act sensibly on climate risk 
]. Global warming has produced notestable hypothesis[
wrong – increased heating at night is one “fingerprint” and thereare others; contrarian deniers ignore all information inconvenient to their claims
], so theonly recourse is to wait and see what happens[
incredibly dangerous; shows completemisunderstanding of risk management. Indeed some global warming impacts are being  seen now; the global warming signal is rapidly arising out of the noise. There aredocumented impacts of global warming in reports that come in every week by experts onincreasingly severe effects on health, crops and food, water, political instability (the US  Defense Department considers effects of climate change a US national security risk),extreme weather, sea level rise, species extinction
]. In 1990 the IPCC's FAR said theglobe would likely warm .3 degrees C per decade and at least .2 degrees[
the amount of  projected warming is scenario dependent and there are many scenarios withuncertainties, most of which being what we humans do. BTW a favorite contrarian trick is to misuse a badly labeled 1990 IPCC graph
]. Since then it has warmed .15 degrees C per decade and none in the last 12 years
[the denier claim of “no warming in last 12 years” is false – 2010 and 2005 are the hottest on record; also subtraction of La Ninaand El Nino effects reveals the global warming trend since 1975 clearly
]. There is a wordfor predictions like that – wrong[
there is a word for essays like this - wrong 
]. The predicted upper troposphere hot spot is missing[
this is a complicated story and contrarian claims are incorrect, see RealClimate.org 
]. The IR radiation going back intospace is higher than predicted[
what? He gives no sources in this essay. Contrariansroutinely misquote scientific papers but quote unreliable unpublished sources
]. The positive feedback effects from which 3/4ths of the predicted warming are supposed tocome have never been observed before[
wrong 
]and the only 'evidence' for them is runsof complex computer models that have proven wrong time and again[
 False -
 
Thecomputer models have certainly not been “proven wrong”, on the contrary they agreewith back testing of temperature data, including drops with volcanoes, on a continent-by-continent basis, and there are other model verifications within the uncertainties
.
Contrarian deniers malign climate models simply because they don’t like theconclusions
]. Now to explain that lack of warming[
wrong - there is no “lack of warming”
]the IPCC has come up with the explanation that aerosol sulfates are maskingthe 'true' warming[
aerosols do mask warming, which would have been greater without aerosols
], even though the IPCC admits[
the IPCC doesn’t “admit” to anything, the IPCC reports accurately characterize research
]to having a 'very low' understanding of this contributor [
 global warming exists outside aerosol uncertainties
]. Gravity isdemonstrated in repeatable lab experiments[
red herring. Deniers who have no expertisein physics often quote physics out of context 
]. Plate tectonics became accepted only after the spreading of the ocean floor was observed[
red herring 
].[
General 
]Relativity was not

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->