If you use Wiki for anything at all, you should read this. The blatant attack on data in the pursuit of an pre-defined objective is the opposite of science; it is propaganda, manufactured in spite of the truth, which is suppressed. An excerpt:
"Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
"The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.
Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Connolly is also a part of the realclimate.com propaganda arm, described here.
10 comments:
Solomon is also a part of the World Net Daily propaganda arm, described here.
Which part of what Solomon said above is false?
WND publishes both news and opinion, as do all news outlets. WND is especially hated because it publishes actual facts that the paleomedia will not publish. LGF is correct to say that its attempt to stifle will not produce any effect on WND.
Any site that refers to "birthers" is itself a propaganda site. Why would a sitting president deny access to his actual birth certificate? When such a site provides an answer to that legitimate question, it steps outside of its Obama-worship bias, and into the rational world.
I do not use WND, except when they have a scoop that refers to primary sources, and is referred to by other sources. That should actually be the standard practice in tracking news events. But it is difficult in many cases, and the reports have to be taken in the context with which they are received.
This has been the case with climate-gate, where issues are revealed, refuted, disrefuted and so on.
So I repeat, which part of what Solomon said is false?
Any site that is focused on the MWP and LIA exposes itself as a propaganda site, because these are textbook examples of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
Historical reconstructions of temperature are irrelevant to whether CO2 radiative forcing currently supersedes the other drivers of climate.
If CO2 were the driver of climate, as in the "sole" driver of climate as you appear to propose, then the global temperature would absolutely follow the CO2 concentration 1:1 and no other forcing. This is obviously false, since the CO2 concentration continues to rise, yet the global temperature does not. I had thought this would be obvious.
Therefore, arriving at climate information through understanding climate history makes more sense than blind attribution of warming to a single, failed forcing function.
Demonstrate why MWP and LIA are fallacies, please. And address why they would qualify as propaganda, not legitimate scientific data.
And answer the above questions, too:
a)What part of what Solomon said is false, and why?
b)Why is it unreasonable to request to see the actual birth certificate of a sitting president? The use of a denigrating term instead of addressing the issue as legitimate makes for propaganda, not for honest discourse.
I'm sure this will be very interesting.
>If CO2 were the driver of climate, as in the "sole" driver of climate as you appear to propose
I've never said that. It's the current STRONGEST driver, not the sole driver. ENSO, for instance, supercedes CO2 on a year to year scale, within the overall upward trend.
>blind attribution of warming to a single, failed forcing function.
It isn't blind and you can't find attribution by staring at temperature graphs. CO2 is concluded to be the current strongest driver of climate because:
1. There is more radiation coming into the upper atmosphere than is leaving it
2. The "missing" radiation is of the same wavelength that CO2 absorbs
3. The radiation of the wavelength CO2 absorbs is increasing at the surface of the earth
>Demonstrate why MWP and LIA are fallacies, please. And address why they would qualify as propaganda, not legitimate scientific data.
Because of the above attribution studies, the conclusion that CO2 is the current strongest driver of climate is reaching higher and higher confidence levels (90% confidence in 2007). Whether we are currently warmer or not than particular periods in the past is irrelevant to any of the above premises, as you can clearly see. Therefore, if someone suggests that the MWP was warmer than now and that therefore CO2 radiative forcing is not 1.6 Wm2, they are attempting to cloud the debate and sow the seeds of confusion and misconception. They are not honestly trying to learn what their opponents say.
>a)What part of what Solomon said is false, and why?
The count of articles Connolly has edited is a total count, which includes many non-climate articles. Multiple lines of evidence since MBH 1998 have increased confidence that we ARE currently warmer than the MWP. If you read the IPCC AR4, they say "we are very confident we are currently warmer than the past 400 years, and somewhat confident that we are currently warmer than in the past 1100 years."
So attempts by skeptics to increase the warmth of the MWP will be met with resistance from people who have actually read the multiple independent studies which all increase confidence that we ARE warmer than the MWP.
But ultimately, focusing on the MWP and LIA show that a person thinks CO2 radiative forcing is somehow determined from this, and thus exposes them as being propogandists, not real skeptics.
>b)Why is it unreasonable to request to see the actual birth certificate of a sitting president?
I'm not going into that subject because I don't know anything about it.
And I repeat the message in your terms: if the major force for climate is currently CO2, then the temperature would follow CO2; temperature is not following CO2 concentrations. The three attribution elements you mention do not include the overall cause / effect: increasing CO2 causes increasing temperatures. In fact, re-rediation might well be at longer wavelengths due to entropic degradation; in fact, entropy insists that cool bodies do not radiate into warmer bodies, which means that CO2 absorption and re-radiation from a cool stratosphere cannot influence a warmer planet.
You are implying that CO2 increases are THE factor which is creating global warming, despite any other forcing elements which are considered negligible by comparison. That does not follow the actual facts. In order to accommodate the actual facts, you will have to admit that the stalling of global temperature is caused by some ameliorating factor, a factor unanticipated by the climate models.
By quote some mysterious “multiple lines of evidence” and then the – in my opinion - discredited IPPC AR4, you have provided no evidence at all for your assertion that the LIA and MWP did not exist.
“Therefore, if someone suggests that the MWP was warmer than now and that therefore CO2 radiative forcing is not 1.6 Wm2, they are attempting to cloud the debate and sow the seeds of confusion and misconception.”
This makes no sense to me. How does a warmer MWP decide the current value of CO2 absorption? Or how does the current value of CO2 forcing decide the temperature of the MWP? The fact that CO2 concentrations were higher during the MWP makes this argument beside the point. Check the ice cores again. And if there are other sources that conflict with this, then the issue is undecided at best. Is this another case of cherry picking the data that fits the answer?
Next, I repeat the question: what part, specifically, of what Solomon said, is false? Where are these “multiple independent studies”? Why do they not jibe with Soon et al. and Plimer, and the ice cores, and etc?
”But ultimately, focusing on the MWP and LIA show that a person thinks CO2 radiative forcing is somehow determined from this, and thus exposes them as being propogandists, not real skeptics.
Sorry but this is blatantly incorrect. No one thinks that current CO2 radiative forcing is caused or determined by the MWP or LIA, nor vice-versa! This charge is preposterous. A higher CO2 concentration in the MWP – under your concern about the relationship between temperature and CO2 – would mean that the higher concentrations of CO2 in the MWP would have forced higher temperatures. Unless, of course there are ameliorating factors. If you disagree that there is a relationship between MWP and CO2, then you must think either that there really is no CO2 factor in warming – which is not your position, or you must think that there are factors that compensated the temperature downward. So what are those factors?
The other option is to deny the existence of the MWP, which is, of course, the position taken by the “experts”.
None of this has anything to do with the current value of CO2 absorption, reflection, re-radiation at other wavelengths due to entropic degradation, cooling due to unconstrained expansion, conduction transfer to other elements for re-radiation, etc, etc.
”>b)Why is it unreasonable to request to see the actual birth certificate of a sitting president?
I'm not going into that subject because I don't know anything about it.”
Really? REALLY?
>And I repeat the message in your terms: if the major force for climate is currently CO2, then the temperature would follow CO2; temperature is not following CO2 concentrations.
But as I said, there is natural variability as well. Sometimes the anthropogenic signal overwhelms the natural signal and becomes apparent, and sometimes vice versa. This is why AGW theory does not come from looking at temperature graphs, but from measuring CO2 radiative forcing.
>In fact, re-rediation might well be at longer wavelengths...
I'm not arguing whether it's true or not. I'm simply pointing out the skeptics' fallacious reasoning.
>you will have to admit that the stalling of global temperature is caused by some ameliorating factor, a factor unanticipated by the climate models.
Climate models only work on ~30 year trends; they don't have decade to decade resolution and thus aren't able and aren't designed to predict decadal variation.
>By quote some mysterious “multiple lines of evidence” and then the – in my opinion - discredited IPPC AR4, you have provided no evidence at all for your assertion that the LIA and MWP did not exist.
I'm quoting the IPCC to show you that THEY THEMSELVES say they are only somewhat confident that we are warmer than ~1000 years ago, which doesn't even include all of the MWP. I.e., their confidence that we are warmer than the entire MWP is not all that high and never was.
>How does a warmer MWP decide the current value of CO2 absorption?
Exactly! That's my point! It doesn't! Nonetheless, skeptics continually attack the MWP, or MBH 1998, etc and imply directly or indirectly that this means AGW is either not real or not that bad. The "bad" comes from the radiative forcing, NOT from looking at temperature charts.
>The fact that CO2 concentrations were higher during the MWP makes this argument beside the point.
They were not. The ice cores are plots of temperature, not CO2.
>No one thinks that current CO2 radiative forcing is caused or determined by the MWP or LIA, nor vice-versa!
Then why do I continually see skeptics attack the hockey stick, and then conclude that AGW is a hoax? Or is this just tabloid journalism I'm seeing? I rarely see skeptics attack AGW, which is that CO2 radiative forcing is stronger than all other drivers of climate.
>A higher CO2 concentration in the MWP...
It wasn't. The ice cores didn't measure CO2 concentrations. Atmospheric CO2 hasn't been as high as today since at least 800,000 years ago. Tripati 2009
>The other option is to deny the existence of the MWP, which is, of course, the position taken by the 'experts'.
I haven't seen that. I've only seen references to VERY HIGH confidence that we are warmer than 400 years ago, and LESS confidence that we are warmer than ~1000 years ago which only includes a portion of the MWP.
I think I finally realize that you are not addressing my position, you are addressing "skeptics" as a general group who have done things you don't like.
I can't address non-specific individuals or their comments. I should not have tried, and wouldn't have, if I had realized.
You are right about the ice core graphs that I had posted, except that they don't show temperature either, they actually show transformed temperature derived from concentrations of isotopes of Oxygen which are presumed stable, I suppose, and that they have an accurate transform from concentration to Temp. There are other graphs around that do show CO2 vs T vs time BP (paleo-time). There is a claim that CO2 lags T by approximately 800 years in the vostok cores, for whatever that is worth. If true, the rising CO2 today would be a continuing response to the temperature 800 years ago and not necessarily a climate driver, but a lagging indicator of an already warm planet (supposedly confirmed by Australian sediment data). But I have not found graphs that I believe, and there are a lot out there.
But back to your issue, do you have examples of actual persons - skeptics and non-skeptics - and their conversations that you would like to discuss?
I'm just critiquing the bankrupt reasoning of many of the so-called "climate skeptics" out there. They don't seem to bother doing any actual research into the area the so confidently dispute.
So what is your position?
Post a Comment