1

The “Cooling Theory” of the Earth Debunked

By Dennis Murphy

27 July 2011

Copyright © 2011 Dennis Murphy

1

2

Table of Contents
The Method used by Climate Change deniers to confuse the people ........................ 3  An open Email to a Former Senator on Man-made Climate Change ....................... 4  Regarding the deceptive use of graphs to confuse an unscientifically trained audience ...................................................................................................................................... 4  The Email ..................................................................................................................... 4  An Email to a Number of Politicians in Australia on Man-made Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................ 10  Another Example of Junk Science.............................................................................. 11  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2

3

The Method used by Climate Change deniers to confuse the people
There is a well known confidence trick used to deceive an untrained audience. It used to be very common in the financial advice industry when they were making their sales pitch to clients who did not have a good grasp of financial matters – or a good understanding of data analysis. Since laws were enacted to clean up that industry the practice is not seen much there now. However it is alive and well now in the climate change denial industry. The technique is simple and has two parts to it. First, you only show your unknowledgeable client the part of the graph that you want them to see – but you conveniently omit the parts of the graph before and after the section you show that tells the exact opposite story. It is known as lying by the omission of critical data. The second part of the confidence trick is to show a short part of the graph as an extended picture, so giving the impression that this is “a significant event” to an uneducated audience – when in reality it is but a minor blip on the larger graph. The deception is further seen when the author of the deception fails to show the minor blips in the other direction – which if shown in exaggerated form – would “prove” the opposite to the story they are peddling. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 

3

4

An open Email to a Former Senator on Man-made Climate Change
NOTE- The Senator addressed below has since left the Australian Senate because his term expired

Regarding the deceptive use of graphs to confuse an unscientifically trained audience I never received an answer to the email below to Senator Fielding. The Email Senator Steve Fielding Senator for Victoria Position: Leader and Whip of the Family First Party Qualifications before entering Federal Parliament MBA (Monash), BE (RMIT). Engineer. 6 June 2011 Dear Senator Fielding, I note that you list your qualifications on the Federal Parliamentary website as an engineer and that you also are described as a Christian in various places on the web. By your own words you are also a proud member of the man-made climate change denial camp. I notice that you have always voted against any Government legislation that would limit emissions of carbon dioxide (and indeed any other greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, You say that the graph directly below is the reason that “you doubt” that man-made carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is responsible for climate change – and hence that any such changes “as may be occurring” are not due to manmade influences. You make the claim that the graph “proves” that carbon dioxide does not cause a temperature increase because the temperature trend on that graph is decreasing while the carbon dioxide is increasing – for a short period of the graph which I note you never mentioned http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-real-reason-ill-fight-in-the-senate-on-climatechange/

4

5

The chart Senator Fielding says sparked his doubts about climate change Please let me ask you a question, and I would ask you – keeping your claims to be a Christian in mind – to read the two Biblical quotes below before you answer the questions. Jeremiah 9:5-6 (NIV) Friend deceives friend, and no one speaks the truth. They have taught their tongues to lie; they weary themselves with sinning. 6 You live in the midst of deception; in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me," declares the Lord. Zechariah 8:16-17 (NIV) 16 These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other, and render true and sound judgment in your courts; 17 do not plot evil against your neighbor, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this," declares the Lord. THE QUESTION – Senator Fielding do you not think that just taking the years in your graph from about 2002 to 2008 where the CO2 graph diverges from the temperature graph before the temperature starts to rise again at about 2008 is not the direct equivalent to the unscrupulous financial advisor who shows their client a graph (as in the example graph below) of a period when the graph between the black lines is all that the advisor shows the client – BUT FAILS TO SHOW THE CLIENT WHAT THE REAL SITUATION WAS ON THE FULL GRAPH Do you agree that someone who manipulates an uneducated audience (“uneducated” that is on a particular subject) by presenting only part of the story is in fact lying by the deliberate omission of critical data to that uneducated audience? Remember now – you are “a Christian”!

5

6

THE GRAPH THE ADVISOR SHOWS THE CLIENT -- AND SAYS, “LOOK AT HOW GOOD I AM AT MAKING MY CLIENT’S MONEY GROW

THE REAL FULL GRAPH THAT AN HONEST ADVISOR SHOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CLIENT Do you agree Senator, that an honest person would have presented the graph(s) below that shows the long term temperature trend is ever upwards as carbon dioxide and other major greenhouse gasses such as methane buildup in the atmosphere? http://climatecrocks.com/2011/02/02/graph-of-the-day-satellite-temperature-records/

6

7

Senator, can you please answer another question for me on the technical front related to the first graph above that you claim in the article on the web led you to doubt the science of man-made climate change? http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-real-reason-ill-fight-in-the-senate-on-climatechange/ You say that you are have a Bachelor of Engineering from RMIT. You don’t actually say what particular field, e.g., mechanical, electrical or other. However I do seem to recall reading somewhere that you studied mechanical engineering. Whatever field of engineering you studied, they all have a common core of subjects, so my question to you is quite simple and as an engineer (of whatever discipline) you should have no problem answering it. Your central claim about that graph is that for a short period of time (about 2002 to 2008) the CO2 and temperature trend lines diverged. This seems an especially troubling conclusion on your part for two reasons and brings into question either your ability to actually read a graph or your truthfulness in presenting the hard cold objective facts to the “uneducated audience” (technical) that you aimed your propaganda at Question one Senator Fielding, you quoted the temporary divergence where the CO2 graph was continuing to rise , but there was a corresponding fall in the temperature trend for 7

8 about six (6) years as evidence of no relationship between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature. Tell me Senator Fielding – using the graphs below (because you were not honest enough to give the reference to the FULL graph you used) where CO2 is shown constantly rising – and the temperature is shown both rising and falling as it continuously trends ever upward – please tell me Senator why were you not honest enough to talk about the areas of the temperature graph that were in fact rising much more rapidly than atmospheric CO2 Perhaps Senator you would be kind enough – not to mention honest enough – to discuss the lockstep rise in total atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature during the period of about 1900 to 2000 – or would you rather wish that we “might think” that you are like the shonky financial advisor who only shows his “financially uneducated client” the part of the graph that “suits his purposes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_Dangerous_Climate_Change

Question two You “claim” to have an engineering degree. As an engineer myself, I thought that all engineers studied systems that have phase lags in them between the inputs to 8

9 the system and the outputs of the system. I won’t bore the non-technically trained readers with a technical discussion of control systems associated with a system that has inertia as one of its properties and how the output(s) of the system can – and do – at times lead, and at other times lag the input(s) (in this case the inputs are the greenhouse gases mainly CO2 and methane, plus solar radiation and the output(s) are atmospheric temperature and atmospheric instabilities such as cyclones, excess rainfall in some areas and droughts in other areas). Anybody who is interested in real science and / or engineering can look at the link below to get a basic idea of the input/output phase lags/leads in such a system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93lag_compensator My question to you Senator Fielding is this – Is it simply that you REALLY DON’T KNOW basic engineering control theory – or is it the case that you do understand how a complex servo system works with all its associated leads and lags between the many and various inputs and the associated system responses and outputs, but that you are deliberately misleading your scientifically and engineering “uneducated audience” for your own reasons? Please tell me which one it is Senator Fielding? Please tell me also Senator Fielding why you – as a so-called practicing Christian – goes to something like the Heartland Institute in the US – who are partly financed by the tobacco companies, and the oil, coal and gas companies to act as their “mouthpiece” – to get “credible” scientific advice on climate change and how man has – and is – influencing that process? (or not – as that bunch of quacks and snake oil salesmen would tell you – but “completely unbiased” of course!) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/ May I suggest Senator that the next time you visit this “highly credible” organization in the US for “scientific advice” that you bring to their attention the video in the link in the email below on powering our cars with water using an onboard electrolysis unit to split water into its constituent parts of hydrogen and oxygen – and then using to these gases in the car’s engine as fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water I am sure that this is just the sort of “science” that the Heartland Institute – along with all the “highly credible” politicians in this country who deny the link between carbon dioxide and man-made climate change – would like to start promoting – just like clones of Dr Goebbels – as the alternative solution to solving the ongoing, and worsening problems of man-made climate change – (“if such a thing exists of course”) Senator, I await your answers to my various questions in this email. Regards Dennis Murphy

9

10

An Email to a Number of Politicians in Australia on Manmade Climate Change
To all the politicians in the distribution list – including Senator Fielding, I think that the two cartoons below just about sum up how any thinking person sees the current “debate” in this country over the subject of man-made climate change. Oh, and by the way Senator Fielding, I am still waiting for your answers to my questions in the email below. I assume that you do have some answers to my questions and you do want to answer so that the other people on the distribution list can pass your answers on the all the other people that they relay the emails to?

10

11

Regards Dennis Murphy ++++++++++++++++++

Another Example of Junk Science
Hello Pat, Thanks for the link below on the “marvellous new idea” that will enable us all to run our cars on water http://www.water-fuel-online.com/ It’s the old story of the perpetual motor setup - a motor drives a generator – whose output is fed back into the motor – which in turn drives the generator. And we both know from an engineering viewpoint how “successful” that idea is! The motor runs at 11

12 90% efficiency so it has 100 watts input and outputs 90 watts to the generator – the generator runs only (at the very best – and that is generous) at 90 % efficiency, so it takes its 90 watts input power from the motor and outputs (90 watts * 0.9) = 81 watts back to the motor. I think that we can see the picture of the losses around the loop? This HHO gas setup is just the same. An electrical power source splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen – which is then fed into the motor – that runs the generator that provides the current to split the water to produce the hydrogen and oxygen – which is then fed into the motor – and so the loop goes on. The only problem is – more power must be fed into the generator that splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen than the output power value that you get from burning the gas in the engine. The end result is that you don’t even get enough power back from the engine to run the generator – let alone have anything left over to run the actual car. I think that I might pass on this one if someone comes to me and suggests that it “might be a good investment” – mind you, I think I know a few politicians in this country that I could easily sell the idea to! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen Fringe science and fraud Oxyhydrogen is sometimes referred as "Brown's Gas" after Yull Brown who advocated such devices,[12] or "HHO gas"after the claims of fringe physicist[13] Ruggero Santilli. Oxyhydrogen is also often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to operate a vehicle using water as a fuel. The most common and decisive counter-argument against producing this gas on-board to use as a fuel or fuel additive is that the energy required to split water molecules exceeds the energy recouped by burning it. [14] This should also not be confused with hydrogen-fueled cars where the hydrogen is produced elsewhere and used as fuel. Regards Dennis

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

12

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful