Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.
That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.
The following are among the blog’s numerous falsehoods and libels:
1. On at least four occasions we are referred to as climate “denialists” – a term as unscientific as it is malevolent. We do not deny that there is a climate, or that it changes, or that the greenhouse effect exists, or that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases enhance that effect and may cause some warming. We raise legitimate scientific questions about how much warming Man may cause, and about whether attempted mitigation can ever be cost-effective.
2. It is claimed that our “preferred route” to air our “grievances about global warming is via “opinion letters published in the mainstream media” rather than via peer review. Yet most of the signatories named by the blog as having “no climate expertise” have published papers in the reviewed literature. To take one example named by the blog, Professor Nils-Axel Mörner of the University of Stockholm has published some 550 papers, nearly all of them in the reviewed literature, and nearly all of them on sea-level rise, which he has been studying for 40 years.
3. It is claimed that our arguments are “unsubstantiated”. Yet our letter offered a great deal of substantiation, as will become evident.
4. Tom Harris of the Climate Science Coalition, one of the letter’s organizers, is described as “best known for grossly misinforming … university students about climate change in a Climate and Earth Science class he should never have been teaching”. The only sources given for this grave libel are a farrago of childish falsehoods on the “Skeptical” “Science” blog and its sole citation, an error-ridden screed circulated by the dishonestly-names “Canadian Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism”.
5. The fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset favoured by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. The minuscule warming over the period is within the margin of uncertainty in the measurements and is, therefore, statistically indistinguishable from zero.
6. It is claimed that we were wrong to say there has been no statistically-significant global warming because the oceans have warmed. However, the standard definition of “global warming” is warming of the near-surface atmosphere. Also, measurements to date are inadequate to tell us reliably how much – if at all – the oceans have warmed in recent years.
7. It is claimed that we were wrong to say that computer models are now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects. Yet we had pointed out, correctly, that a paper by leading climate modelers, published in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008, had said that 15 years or more without global warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models’ projections and real-world observations and that, therefore, the models were proven incorrect by their creators’ own criterion.
8. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is a distinct possibility. Yet some scientists have indeed pointed out what we said they had pointed out, though our use of the word “some” fairly implies there is evidence in both directions in the literature.
9. It is claimed that we used “careful wording” in saying that there is an absence of an attributable climate change signal in trends in extreme weather losses to date. Yet we were merely citing the IPCC itself on this point.
10. It is claimed that we were wrong to state that the incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. Though it is trivially true that temperature maxima have increased with warming, there has been no trend in land-falling Atlantic hurricanes in 150 years, and there has been a decline in severe tropical cyclones and typhoons during the satellite era.
11. It is claimed that we “falsely” accuse the U.N. Secretary General of “making unsupportable claims that human influences caused” tropical storm Sandy, and that “in reality, Ban Ki-Moon did not say climate change caused Hurricane (sic) Sandy”. Yet he had said: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane (sic) Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.” We had rightly written: “We ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not.”
12. It is claimed that we are “a list of non-experts”. Yet half of the 129 signatories are Professors; two-thirds are PhDs, and several are Expert Reviewers for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.
One day, the useless “Skeptical” “Science” blog may perhaps have a curiosity value to historians studying the relentless, lavishly-funded deviousness and malice of the tiny clique who briefly fooled the world by presenting themselves as a near-unanimous “consensus” (as if consensus had anything to do with science) and mercilessly bullied anyone with the courage and independence of mind to question their barmy but transiently fashionable beliefs. The blog’s falsehoods have made no serious contribution to the scientific debate that we who are genuinely skeptical and truly scientific have by our patient endurance now largely won.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
richardscourtney says:
Specifically, what awards are you speaking of?
When discussing James Hansen, it doesn’t seem to faze you guys that he has won pretty much every award he could have won from the various professional societies of his peers. These awards include the Roger Revelle Medal from the American Geophysical Union, the Leo Szilard Award of the American Physical Society, the Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from AAAS, the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal of the American Meteorological Society, as well as numerous awards at NASA, as well as being elected to the National Academy of Sciences and made a fellow of the AGU.
Do awards by peers only count for certain people and not for others?
But it’s not just a matter of whether the goalposts were hit, but what were the stakes? Looking back at last month’s post,
So, there is, on statistical grounds alone, a discrepancy at the 95% level. Does that mean that the theory of CO2 as driver for warming is false? Well, just from the statistics, the odds of this happening at random are 20 to 1. But unlikely things happen all the time. If you look only at temperature trends, then an outlier at the 95% confidence level looks very odd. But if you look at, say, 100 variables, then even if they all follow their expected behavior, 5 of them will lie outside the expected range.
So what does it mean when you see something pop up at the 95% level? Certainly, you need to take a closre look at it. If you can find a reason that it happened, then there’s no need to modify or abandon your theory yet. If you exclude other possible explanations, and your discrepancy is still there, well, it still might be random but you start watching it especially carefully. In the end, if you’re doing pure science, you might just call it “uncertain, for now, need more data.” In other areas, as in medical tests, you need to consider the importance of detecting what you’re looking for, and the costs of missing it.
But that’s all in the absence of an explanation. We have a strong El Nino in 1998, which boosts one end of the curve if you include it, and also back-to-back La Ninas in 2010 and 2011, along with a century-class solar minimum around 2008 and what seems to be a weak solar cycle now.
Off the top of one’s head, it’s hard to say what the effects of El Nino, several El Ninas, and solar variability are on the temperature. There was an attempt to correct for these things, along with volcanic emissions, to get just the CO2 signal out. That was Foster and Rahmstorf, (20110). Here’s a link to their graph:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-8a.png
Bob Tisdale took issue with this work, and in fact, I drew the link from one of his articles on WUWT on that subject:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/02/tisdale-takes-on-taminos-foster-rahmstorf-2011/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/tisdale-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-take-2/
For now, though, I’m not as much interested in hashing out those criticisms as I am in simply saying “to look at CO2, you have to eliminate other factors” and then giving an example of people trying to do just that.
Going back to Anthony’s article, to quote Phil Jones, from one of the Climategate emails:
So, it looks like Jones gets to be worried. But like exceeding NOAA’s 95% window, what does that mean? Jones certainly doesn’t control the weather, or the climate, nor did he ever claim to know everything about them. If I were worried about strange data, I’d do the same things noted above: investigate it as a statistical anomaly, look for other explanations, and, if none are forthcoming, view it with increasing suspicion. But there are other explanations, at least in this case. Of course, that doesn’t mean we all stop watching it, either. And keep a (properly shielded) eye on Mr. Sun as well.
To the nearest year, there has been no warming at all for 16 years, statistical or otherwise, on several data sets. However we can go back 18 years to show no statistical warming, even on the other data sets. This has been demonstrated in posts above.
But there’s also no statistically significant difference between the slopes from those datasets, and slopes of 2.0, 3.5, and even 4.4 degrees C per century. And since the data are equally consistent with significant slopes, or even one alarming one, and with zero slope, they don’t seem to have much use in telling us trends.
JazzyT says:
“Does that mean that the theory of CO2 as driver for warming is false?”
Jazzy does not understand the difference between a theory and a conjecture. CO2 as a ‘driver’ of global warming is a conjecture. It is not a “theory”. A theory makes accurate predictions, and as we know, the conjecture that CO2 drives global temperature is nothing but a falsified conjecture.
Sixteen years and counting…
JazzyT says:
December 7, 2012 at 2:03 pm
But unlikely things happen all the time.
That is very true. So since we cannot be sure whether this lack of warming is a fluke or something that will last for decades, perhaps we should avoid wasting billions on things like carbon capture until we are really sure what is going on.
joeldshore:
At December 7, 2012 at 8:12 am you ask me
“richardscourtney says:
“Morner has been honoured with awards by his peers. In the unlikely event that anybody gives you similar respect then – and only then – will people take what you say seriously.”
Specifically, what awards are you speaking of? ”
The world’s sea level researchers elected him President of the INQUA Commission and they were so resolute in re-electing him that the Commission was disbanded and reformed to oust him.
He was awarded the ‘Golden Contrite of Merits’ by Algarve University.
He …. etc.
Now, about those awards you have not gained, don’t you think you should get some before attempting to demean your betters?
Richard
Bart says:
December 5, 2012 at 11:49 pm
This was my point, although I approached it more through the combination of wide error bars (encompassing a huge range of outcomes–see my reply to richardscourtney above), and also moving endpoints.
A quick couple of searches didn’t turn up that thread–if you can give a link or a keyword that takes me to it, I’d be grateful.
Discovery 2
CLIMATE CHANGE DUE TO GASES IS IMPOSSIBLE.
The moisture conditions of the earth’s surface wet or dry, not gases, determine or control the climate/weather. Gases can’t form a green house, so Green house effect due to gases is imaginary or pseudo science. Rain cycle is related to heat and evaporation only. Thus C.C. change due to gases is impossible.
Please click on my name for details
D Böehm says:
December 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Interesting, but these are all from only six places, comprising Northern/alpine Europe, England, and Eastern/central North America. These are places where the Little Ice Age is most strongly established so we could expect their climates to be similar, but for the rest of the world, and global trends, it doesn’t say what has happened.
No slopes are given for trendlines, and since they are all (understandably) on different timescales, it’s impossible even to eyeball any correlations and see how well these records match one another.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for as a measurement: perhaps warming that stands out from the temperature record, as being correlated with CO2, so that no other driver could be imagined, much less found? If we had a hundred planets to play with, we could run that experiment in a decade or two: subject groups of three to five different CO2 levels, for others, turn CO2 emissions on for five years, off for five years, on again, and look for a sawtooth temperature pattern, reserve twenty planets as controls, etc. Instead, we look at one planet with a recent, artificial CO2 increase, and watch what happened.
With a sample size of one, an improving, but sparse set of measurements, and no practical way to control the input for experimental purposes, we can only look for very simple responses, or else use complicated ways to interpret the data in order to confirm the hypothesis. The latter tends to involve computer models, which can be tricky to work with. Even if they are applied properly, many people are, to put it mildly, reluctant to trust them.
But we can still look at some broad statements: First, warming due to increased CO2 was predicted in 1975:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/
(No, I don’t automatically go to RealClimate for my information; it was just the first result that google gave me that had a decent explanation of this point.)
So, the temperature warmed, as was predicted. Still, that could have been a coincidence, and people will still ask questions based on the recent apparent plateau: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/from:1958
That issue needs to be addressed, but first: there’s another effect of increased CO2 that was predicted, and observed, which is the cooling of the stratosphere. You’ve probably seen it a few times, but here’s one reference:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
CO2 was predicted to warm the lower troposphere, which was subsequently observed. But, CO2 was also predicted to cool the stratosphere, especially the upper stratosphere, and that was also observed. Stratospheric cooling is difficult to explain by other mechanisms besides CO2. (Even cooling from ozone depletion takes part mostly in the lower stratosphere). The combination of lower-level warming and upper-level cooling is very difficult to explain by any mechanism other than CO2 concentrations. Different mechanisms could be at work, but to have both the warming and cooling happen at the same time, along with CO2, by mechanisms that we did not observe, is unlikley enough to strongly support the CO2 mechanism as the cause of the observed warming/cooling trends.
Put these two confirmed predictions together with the very well-known physics that predicted these effects in the first place, and you’re justified in calling it a theory.
Then, the data has tossed a curve ball at the theory, as often happens: 16 years of apparently flat temps. That needs an explanation, and it has one: strong El Nino, several El Ninas, and some recent years of quiet solar output. Too early to say that the curve ball was hit out of the park, but the theory definitely did not strike out.
JazzyT says:
“Interesting, but these are all from only six places, comprising Northern/alpine Europe, England, and Eastern/central North America.”
And with that casual dismissal of six [actually eight including Russia] independent observations of empirical evidence, JazzyT hand-waves away the fact that there has been no accelerated global warming following the recent 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. The evidence covers the greater part of the globe, but JazzyT’s mind is made up, and facts do not matter to him.
So his argument totally fails. I could provide not just six, but sixty similar temperature records, and JazzyT would give a similar mindless response.
Facts and scientific evidence do not matter to the climate alarmist crowd. Their minds are made up and closed air-tight, and cannot be changed no matter how many contrary facts are presented.
It is a fact that the long term rising temperature trend has remained along the same trend line for centuries, whether CO2 has been low or high. To reasonable people, that simple fact proves that CO2 has such a minor effect [if such an effect even exists] that it cannot even be measured. Thus, any effect from CO2 is too small to matter; the rise in CO2 makes no measurable difference in the natural recovery from the LIA. That is a reality-based fact. There are no empirical measurements showing any effect on temperature from CO2. None.
JazzyT is arguing with everyone here, because the “carbon” scare has become JazzyT’s personal religion. Science has nothing to do with his beliefs any more. Mile-thick glaciers could once again cover Chicago, and JazzyT would still be parroting the debunked AGW scare. Such is religious True Belief — the anti-science cornerstone of the climate alarmist cult.
JazzyT repeats talking points that have been repeatedly debunked, such as: “CO2 was predicted to warm the lower troposphere, which was subsequently observed.”
Flat untrue. The repeated predictions of a “tropospheric hot spot” have been debunked by thousands of empirical observations made by satellites and radiosonde balloons.
The falsifying of even one prediction falsifies a conjecture. Yet these repeatedly falsified assumptions are constantly trotted out in a futile attempt to support the failed CO2=AGW conjecture — for which there exists no verifiable scientific evidence whatever.
JazzyT has picked up far too much anti-science at alarmist blogs like RealClimatePropaganda. He needs to wake up and learn what the scientific method and the null hypothesis mean, or he will continue to spout his pseudo-scientific, fact-free alarmist nonsense.
D Böehm says:
December 8, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Berlin and Copenhagen are close enough to be well correlated, as are New York and Washington, DC. But I failed tomention that, so it looked odd.
Not in the evidence you cited.
Sixty thermometer-based temperature records, going back two centuries and more, covering the greater part of the globe? Really? Do tell. Especially about the Southern Hemisphere.
And have you, or somebody corrected that trend for changing UHI effects in growing cities? Or is it raw data?
And of course, the data for individual cities are far too noisy, and too local, to show us global trends. They have to be combined:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg
With that, you can talk about Global trends.
The lowest part of the troposphere is in contact with the surface, which has warmed. Flat true.
The repeated predictions of a “tropospheric hot spot” have been debunked by thousands of empirical observations made by satellites and radiosonde balloons.
Complex measurements, with uncorrected biases, causing them to miss a change in temperature structure expected from any warming, not just CO2. More importantly, this irrelevant to the fact that the surface warmed, along with the air in contact with it. Surface measurements are enough to show this.
Funny how you never seem to use the term “hypothesis,” much less recognize that a hypothesis may be refined in response to experiments and observations. In fact, they usually are.
And this leads to the one remaining question that is actually of interest: What would you call “verifiable scientific evidence?” What evidence would convince you that CO2 leads to anthropogenic global warming?
JazzyT,
I suggest you read Willis Eschenbach’s latest article, dated today. It destroys the conjecture that CO2 has any meaningful effect on temperature. Turns out the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is 0.0ºC.
D Boehm: No, it doesn’t. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/10/an-interim-look-at-intermediate-sensitivity/ As Willis himself explains, he is measuring some intermediate sensitivity, not the equilibrium climate sensitivity. [Actually, he is measuring something that most scientists wouldn’t even call climate sensitivity at all for various reasons, such as the fact that climate sensitivity is by its definition a value for the entire globe and over long enough time periods for the climate system to get to “equilibrium” (really, more like a steady-state).] And, he doesn’t get the result you claim…And, in fact, he admits, “As I said, not much analysis, just some thoughts and graphics.” It is just some musings by him that even he is not ready to defend as giving any firm results on the question of the equilibrium climate sensitivity.
joelshore doesn’t like it when I do what Willis asks, and quote his own words:
“…climate sensitivity is inversely related to temperature. This is clearly true for the land.”
joelshore has a problem with “inversely related”. He’s probably furiously searching online for the meaning of “inversely” right now.
Willis also stated that the sensitivity for the oceans was about 0.1ºC. That is nothing, and averaged with the inversely related land data, it turns out that I have been right all along when I wrote that at current and projected concentrations, the effect of CO2 is effectively zero. CO2 is an extremely minor 3rd order forcing, and its negligible effect is constantly swamped by 1st and 2nd order forcings.
Finally, I note for the record once again that Planet Earth agrees with Willis — and disagrees with joelshore. Who ya gonna believe?
D Boehm says:
It is clear from looking at Willis’s graphs what he meant: Climate sensitivity goes down as temperature goes up. That does not mean TEMPERATURE goes down as temperature goes up (which really wouldn’t make sense anyway now, would it?) So, if the climate sensitivity went from 3.2 C per CO2 doubling when the temperature is 30 C to 2.8 C per CO2 doubling when the temperature is -30 C, that would satisfy what Willis clearly meant when he said that they are inversely related.
And, as I have pointed out in a comment that his not yet appeared in that thread, it is not surprising that climate sensitivity might be a decreasing function of temperature, since that is certainly the case for the climate sensitivity in the absence of feedbacks, as can be seen by differentiating the Stefan-Boltmann law.
joeldshore:
At December 10, 2012 at 11:42 am you say
True, but both are zero.
This paper explains that climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration is a short-term effect that only lasts while the climate system adjusts.
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
It concludes that
Richard
richardscourtney says:
December 10, 2012 at 12:54 pm
No physics, just a statistical comparison showing that the a well-characterized signal (CO2) seems to have a different polynomial order than another signal (temperature) that is so noisy that it takes decades to tell reliably whether it’s going up or down. And they think they know the polynomial order of that? And then they draw conclusions about a physical process, with a mathematical model so abstract that it contains no physics?
Perhaps the authors will follow this up with a study of correlation between age and birthdate of themselves and their last four generations of ancestors, with really noisy data, and conclude that they themselves haven’t been born yet. But without any mention of the time paradox involved in unborn authors writing the paper, with a time discrepency beyond what relativity could explain in any reference frame. Because that would be physics.
D Böehm says:
December 10, 2012 at 10:55 am
Did. But what about the question: What would you call “verifiable scientific evidence?” What evidence would it take to convince you that CO2 leads to anthropogenic global warming?
JazzyT says:
Frankly, no evidence will convince him because his opinions are driven completely by ideology, not evidence. As an example of this, you can look at this post-election thread comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/09/a-post-election-oddity-im-noticing/#comment-1142776 where D Boehm dismissed Nate Silver’s blog as “far left” because it predicted the election the way that it actually turned out rather than the way he wants to believe it should have turned out. As I understand it, to him, some combination of Hurricane Sandy and fraud miraculously caused the election to come out the way it did (the way Nate predicted it in all 50 states and in all but one of the Senate races) when otherwise Romney would have won.
D Boehm is a poster-child for the ability of the modern conservative movement in the U.S. to exist in their own epistemological bubble that cannot be penetrated by any amount of evidence, fact, or reason. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative who is concerned about the way the movement has become completely disconnected with reality has a brave piece about it here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/
JazzyT:
Your post at December 11, 2012 at 4:37 am says
Your answer is pure pseudoscience at its finest.
The paper is an analysis of temperature time series by experts in data analyses of time series.
Your words (which I cite) in rejection of it are precisely the same kind of ignorant stupidity which enabled the disaster of Mann’s ‘hockey stick’. He, too, made the mistake of thinking he could ignore expertise in time series analysis.
The authors of that paper have more expertise to analyse global temperature time series than all the total of self-proclaimed climatologists in the world.
Their analysis of the global temperature time series shows effects of greenhouse gases are transient. Others can find out why the effects are transient, but the analysis shows they are transient.
And, since it seems you don’t know.
Science
consists of obtaining the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by constantly seeking information which refutes existing understanding(s) and amending the understanding(s) in light of the information.
Pseudoscience
consists of deciding something is ‘truth’ then constantly seeking information which supports it while making excuses to ignore information which refutes it.
Richard
JazzyT,
Willis provided verifiable evidence. And it would take empirical measurements showing that AGW exists. We have empirical measurements clearly showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. But there are no such measurements showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. None.
Further, there is no long term correlation between CO2 and temperature. That is not to say that AGW does not exist at all. But I agree with Willis: AGW is a very minor, 3rd order forcing that is easily swamped by 1st and 2nd order forcings. AGW simply does not matter. It is a trumped up scare that is used to instill fear in the population. That fear makes it easy to impose new taxes, and that is what the AGW scare is all about.
If not for the immense amounts of money involved, AGW would be merely a scientific curiosity. But because of the money, politics has become involved. For all practical purposes, AGW is irrelevant. But conniving people will lie incessantly about it in order to promote their personal ideology. We see it right here: joelshore is an unhappy chump because the planet is falsifying his failed catastrophic AGW conjecture. Global warming has stopped. After being wrong for sixteen years, any honest scientist would admit that there is a major failure with the catastrophic AGW conjecture.
But not joelshore, because he is not honest. See proof above: joelshore posts long comments on blogs in the middle of his workday, instead of doing the job he is paid for. Dishonesty is a hallmark of the alarmist cult. We see them doing this all the time. No wonder they cannot abide the scientific method, and admit it when they are shown to be wrong. The truth is not in them. Name one well known climate alarmist who will now admit that the AGW conjecture is wrong, or even grossly exaggerated. Good luck with that.
I also note joelshore’s usual raising of politics. That is where he is coming from, not from science. He is an extreme Leftist, a communist to the core. WUWT has people of all political persuasions who reject the failed CAGW conjecture. The question for them is not political. But it is 100% political with joelshore. CAGW is simply joelshore’s way of instigating totalitarianism. He is not an honest scientist, he is a political hack who perverts science into politics.
D Boehm says:
I think my employer is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether I am performing my job. If they wanted me to work standard 9-5 hours, they would be rather disappointed if I didn’t make any progress over the weekend in grading the 108 exams that I will receive on Friday. And, I would gladly put my intellectual honesty here on this site up against yours any day (in for example, not continuing to show graphs that have been scientifically critiqued and that you can’t even scientifically defend).
Well, here is a history of scientific publication and citation that suggests that other scientists do not view my work this way: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JXhNbi0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao How about yours?
joelshore says:
“I would gladly put my intellectual honesty here on this site up against yours any day (in for example, not continuing to show graphs that have been scientifically critiqued and that you can’t even scientifically defend).”
You have no intellectual honesty. None. And I can prove it.
I have posted literally thousands of different charts here, from hundreds of different sources, most of them peer reviewed. I have folders containing more than four thousand charts. Yet to this day, you have rejected all the charts I have ever posted. You have never agreed with a single chart I’ve posted, nor ever admitted that any chart I posted might be valid. You say they are all wrong.
Anyone who is intellectually honest would know that most, if not all of the charts I post are reliable, and derived from verifiable data. But you reject every one. You have no more intellectual honesty than Michael Mann or Peter Gleick. Like them, you are only an alarmist propagandist, doing what Stephen Schneider instructed you to do: lie for your cause. No intellectual honesty there, eh?