Dr. David Deming in the Washington Times:
“With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/the-real-deniers-of-climate-change/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Clear and concise. I like this.
Do I hear someone sputtering in the background?
It certainly appears so, doesn’t it?
Outside the claim about ‘we should not be setting any cold records in a warming world’, pretty good article.
Yup.
The only true denialists are those who are sticking to the claim that man is the main cause of global warmin/cooling/change. They claim that I and my fellow skeptics are “denying science”. When I ask for the “science” I just get called names. Not once have I actually been offered any “science”. Just claims that its settled and why don’t I listen to all the scientists. When I ask who are these scientists, I get the same response – no response.
It’s only Tuesday – how can we have a “Quote of the Week” now?
Well, it is well constructed and informative. So, thanks. I would not have seen this otherwise. This is he, I think: David Deming (born 1954), an American geologist and geophysicist, is an associate professor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our local (central Washington State) weather is setting up to spring into spring this week, unless it doesn’t. The fruit trees are saying “Maybe” but they are not rushing into blossoming – being smarter than your average “climate scientist.”
Don’t forget that the so-called “industry of denial” is also accused of being a paid puppet of the fossil fuel industry. Trouble is, there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove skeptic scientists ever received money with explicit industry instructions to fabricate false climate assessments or to ‘deliberately confuse the public’. Instead of the situation being one where skeptics ‘manufactured doubt’ about AGW, what this all looks like instead is an effort by enviro-activists to manufacture doubt about the credibility of the skeptics so that it appears there is no credible opposition to the IPCC.
If only this was in the Washington Post. Then it would reach the people who most need to read it. All is not lost, however, many or most members of congress read the Washington Times.
This is all very interesting, but it appears in The Washington Times, which is considered a trustworthy news source, if lacking in circulation. Had this been in the pages of The Washington Post, that old propaganda whore, then it might be a portent of change, but stands now as another sermon at choir practice.
Hmmm… I am not stan sendera, nor have we ever met or collaborated…
W.T:
“Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts.
At the end of March, the areal extent of sea ice in the Arctic was 3 percent below the 30-year average. Sea ice in the Antarctic, however, was elevated 24 percent. Global sea ice was above the 30-year mean and higher than it was in March 1980.
”
Well the article was going quite well until that point. But this “fact” will surely be seen as proof of “denialism” . Choosing max Arctic date (max is fairly stable) and min Antarctic (where ice is increaseing) is a blattent cherry pick
This is just as non sensical as doing it the other way around which warmists invariably do.
Being just a stupid as the other side is not a very convincing way to prove the other side stupid.
There is a good case to be made that it is the warmists who are now in denial about the way climate has been changing and I agree with that point of view.
However, I’m certainly not convinced by this twisted “fact” list and would have to agree with any enviro that called out the author for misrepresenting the facts to serve his point .
Most disappointing and counter productive.
Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
April 23, 2013 at 9:13 am
You might possibly have missed the delicious irony.
stan stendera says:
April 23, 2013 at 9:14 am
“If only this was in the Washington Post. ”
In that case, the Ford Foundation would probably stop awarding cash prizes to the WaPo for outstanding journalism.
I agree with Luther Wu says:
April 23, 2013 at 9:14 am
…And, when you see an article like this in the New York Times, you will know that there is progress being made. When 60 Minutes does an investigative report exposing SKS, or Phil Jones, or Michael Mann, you will know there is progress being made.
Deming states: “If the world were experiencing a climate crisis owing to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record low temperature anywhere in the world.”
Imagine if a scientist or academic who believed in AGW wrote the following sentence in an editorial: “If the world were not experiencing a climate crisis due to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record high temperature anywhere in the world.” That author would be raked over the coals (no pun intended) on WUWT for a statement like that. But when a skeptic like Deming says the converse, nobody complains. Seems like a double standard to me….
Around 4 years ago I commented in the Guardian (paraphrase),
“We will soon know who the real deniers are.”
@Chirs I believe your logic is wrong. If there is no AGW crisis, you would expect some new record highs, as well as some new record lows, just as it has always been. These are really just finding the outliers that have never been recorded before. But if our earth has warmed up as much as the team says (i.e.catastrophically), new record lows should indeed be very uncommon.
Great article by Dr. Deming–each one helps!
As he recounted how cold and snow records were casually dismissed as being due to global warming, he wrote “Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts.” Great quote!
But, skeptics appreciate facts, so here goes:
By coincidence, I have been monitoring temps in OKC, as somewhat representative of the mid-continent. I use data from NOAA. The last “official” winter (winter solstice to vernal equinox) averaged 0.7 degrees F per day COLDER than normal. March was 2.89 degrees BELOW normal. April, unless there is a massive heat wave in the next few days, is heading to nearly 5 degrees per day BELOW normal.
(I can’t wait for the “warmists” reaction—-“Weather is not climate, idiot!”)
Well stated. Clear and to the point.
@ur momisugly Luther Wu says:
April 23, 2013 at 9:14 am
Drawing lines between the reasonable and not is part of the process. The rabid will isolate themselves and increasingly stand out to be judged.
Jeff in Calgary,
You’re correct, I should’ve used as my corollary an example about global cooling (which many skeptics say is happening). My main point was about his statement “not a single record low temperature anywhere in the world” being a rather preposterous statement to make, which I think is still valid. As far as the number of record highs to lows, yes, the number of new highs should be greater than the number of new lows. And that’s exactly what the National Center for Atmospheric Research found when they analyzed temperature records from 1800 weather stations across the US for the last 6 decades. In the 1950s, the ratio of new highs/lows was 1.09/1; in the 2000s it had increased to 2.04/1.
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us
Chris says:
“As far as the number of record highs to lows, yes, the number of new highs should be greater than the number of new lows. And that’s exactly what the National Center for Atmospheric Research found when they analyzed temperature records from 1800 weather stations across the US…”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry, Chris, that info is wrong.
DBStealey,
So let’s see, I reference a study that looks at 1800 weather stations over a 6 decade period and millions of temperature data points. You select a period of 1 week (!). Yeah, that’s a real apples to apples comparison.
Chris says:
April 23, 2013 at 10:30 am
Deming states: “If the world were experiencing a climate crisis owing to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record low temperature anywhere in the world.”
Imagine if a scientist or academic who believed in AGW wrote the following sentence in an editorial: “If the world were not experiencing a climate crisis due to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record high temperature anywhere in the world.” That author would be raked over the coals (no pun intended) on WUWT for a statement like that. But when a skeptic like Deming says the converse, nobody complains. Seems like a double standard to me….
————————-
Come on Chris. Does this quibble actually have anything to do with the point Deming was making? Couldn’t you delete this sentence from the article without invalidating it or in any way affecting the larger argument?
This was the point, in case you missed it:
Chris says:
April 23, 2013 at 11:30 am
You have a semi-valid point, and Deming’s statement was overwrought. However, there are two things to consider:
1) The argument is not over whether temperatures rose over the past 6 decades. It is obvious that they did. The question was always one of attribution for the observations.
2) Moreover, the debate today is over the apparent lack of warming over the past 15 or so years. So, while a 7 day view does not address the question, neither does a 6 decade one.