400 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
by Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone
During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.
These 400 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled.
Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.
Natural factors such as the Sun (106 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.
And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science. This amounts to more than 900 papers in less than 2 years.
Below are the two links to the list of 400 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Snopes has a fact check listing some of the misleading in this list (as covered by Delingpole in Breitbart) here.
Snopes is a far-left non-entity, started by a mindless twerp and his now divorce proceedings ex.
brought out by a load of RABID AGW and leftist cretins..
Right down your alley, Nick..
You should go and join them .. because, as you constantly show…
….. FACTS mean nothing to you.
Seriously Nick, please don’t tell you are brain-washed enough to have fallen for the Snopes idiocy.
I really thought even you had more intelligence.
Apparently….. NOT !!
“FACTS mean nothing to you”
Oh yeah? Snopes has plenty of facts. Here is just one. In June, an earlier list of 58 papers was produced, and duly reprinted by Breitbart. 26 of those authors wrote statements saying that their papers had been misrepresented and in no way supported Richards’ claim. Those statements appeared in June, you can read them here. Their papers still appear in this October list, with no acknowledgement.
Five RABID warmists contact and threaten the writers of the 57 papers.
Your point is ??
The very first Lovejoy chart on that link shows what a FARCE the so-called scientists are.
They use GISS fabrications for a start..
You HAVE to be joking !!
And then Neff compounds the error.
ZERO REALITY.. !!
Let’s look at Tyler Jones comment
”
We know from other studies that West Antarctica is currently warming faster than almost any other place on Earth. Furthermore, my paper has nothing to do with global warming or human activities.”
Interesting point, isn’t it.. if your mind is capable of absorbing it.
Yes we all know that the West Antarctic warming was nothing to do to do with global or human activity.
As we all know, Nick…
There is NO CO2 warming signature in the satellite data.
There is no CO2 warming signature in sea level,
There is NO CO2 warming signature ANYWHERE.,
I can only IMAGINE the pressure put on this scientists in the way of scare tactics and promise of financial sanctions, to make them bend to the AGW meme.
As Tyler Jones says, his paper has nothing to do with global warming or human activities. It is a study of ice core records from 29000 years ago. It has nothing to do with modern W Antarctica warming.
WOW, Talk about the DEEP climate troughers
https://climatefeedback.org/team-advisors-contributors/
That’s the link to the far-left climate troughers that Nick is citing
Abrahams, Mandia, the guy from ARSEtechnica…..
Are you trying to make even more of a JOKE of yourself, Nick ???
“Center for Climate Communication” University of Californication.
ROFLMAO !!
Al Gore would be proud, and Soros is probably a funder.
Emmanuel Vincent is a rabid alarmist, who has started a CON JOB to report on Climate change news articles that the AGW priests don’t like.
Associates like John Abraham, and Scott Mandia tell you IMMEDIATELY where they are coming from.
“We believe it’s our civic duty to make the scientific realities of climate change better known to the public” says Emmanuel Vincent..
So, just another climate propaganda snow-job unit. equal, probably to Skeptical non-science.
When they start coming out and correcting some of Al Gore’s LIES and Anti-FACTS, ………
And the Lies and Fabrications from GISS et al…..
roflmao..
AS IF THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN. !!!!
“That’s the link to the far-left climate troughers that Nick is citing”
I am citing quoted statements from the very authors that Richards claimed in June had written papers supporting skeptic claims. They say emphatically that they have been misrepresented. Their papers are still included in the list in October.
Here they bare giving a “high scientific credibility” to a sea level rise article by Justin Gilles.
You have GOT to be kidding !, Nick
A read through the Community names is well worth a luagh.
All the big boys of the AGW S**M are there. !!
Betts, Pitman, Shepherd, Venema, Dessler, Gleick, Hausfather, Hoegh-Guldberg, Terry Hughes, Lewandowsky, Michael Mann, Carl Mears, Stefan Rahmstorf, Scambos, Gavin Schmidt, Steven Sherwood,
Kevin Trenberth
etc etc
The very cream of the crop of the AGW priesthood
https://climatefeedback.org/community/
I don’t know snoope, soup, or whatever. I just won’t judge someone work by the T-shirt they casually wear. That’s what CAGW cultist do, not proper skeptic.
“I am citing quoted statements PURPORTEDLY from the very authors.
Bullied, coerced….. or with Gleike, Mann, etc etc around…… just plain fabricated.
This is Snopes. Yep.. this is where Nick gets his facts. !!!
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/26/16/42AF3F1100000578-4730092-image-a-2_1501084300916.jpg
you behave like a CAGW cultist, as if wearing awful pink T shirt were a sign of doing bad science.
you’d rather ask mod to delete your post
Oh Dear.. you “believe” in Snopes too , do you. !!
I don’t know snoope, soup, or whatever. I just won’t judge someone work by the T-shirt they casually wear. That’s what CAGW cultist do, not proper skeptic.
This is Rick Cina (AKA Kenneth Richard) Andy’s source.
http://www.axtell.com/new/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/APU_RickCina.jpg
I stumbled across this, which raises grave doubts about the 400 papers thing:
https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
“NTZ employs three main strategies (in selecting the papers): straw man arguments that falsely change the evidence for global warming into something that is easier to refute; the inclusion of papers wholly irrelevant to the reality of anthropogenic climate change; and the inclusion of papers (or conference abstracts) that almost certainly underwent little or no peer review process.”
@Griff
drin drin, my smear detector just rang at “that almost certainly underwent little or no peer review process” (*), inhibiting any trust in the 2 previous claims (straw man argument ? irrelevancy ?) and triggering some questions that you surely can answer :
What’s snopes ? what track record of trustfulness can it show ? who is funding that ? Sierra club ? Greenpeace ? does people there receive money from climate change grants ?
If you don’t answer, i will stand to null hypothesis : smearing on a thing, untrustworthy on all others until proved otherwise, and not worthy to be examined further to restore trust in it. Meaning, its 2 previous claims are also wrong (straw man argument, irrelevancy), and the very fact that a snopes kind stand for them reinforce the opposite view.
(*) either the papers underwent peer review, or they didn’t, and this can be known (much easier than anything in climate, that snopes pretend to know). Either snopes KNOWS they didn’t, and the “almost certainly” is useless; or it doesn’t actually know, so it’s just smear.
Griff:
Snopes’ “False” claim is bogus.
Kenneth Richard of NTZ waded through all of the papers. The fact that some of them are about how environmentally terrible “renewable” energy is or on how Green policies are failing doesn’t invalidate those that focus on the phony science of CACCA.
Here are a few that do just that, but you aren’t interested in even trying to handle the truth:
It’s the sun, stupid! (three of the 106 papers stressing solar influence on climate)
Li et al., 2017
It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation
Yndestad and Solheim, 2017
Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods.
Tejedor et al., 2017 (linked below)
The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity
Climate influenced by natural oscillation (eg El Nino; La Nina)
Belohpetsky et al., 2017
It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation
Park et al., 2017
According to our results, the central Mexican climate has been predominantly controlled by the combined influence of the 20-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the 70-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
Lim et al., 2017
Our study demonstrated that floodfrequency and climate changes at centennial-to-millennial time scales in South Korea have been coupled mainly with ENSO activity
Modern climate in phase with natural variability
Conroy et al., 2017
20th century precipitation variability in southern Tibet falls within the range of natural variability in the last 4100 yr, and does not show a clear trend of increasing precipitation as projected by models
Verdon-Kidd et al., 2017
Overall, the inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of rainfall and runoff observed in the modern record (Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 22% for rainfall, 42% for runoff) is similar to the variability experienced over the last 500 years (CV of 21% for rainfall and 36% for runoff).
Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate
Viterito, 2017
This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.
Huhtemaa and Helama, 2017
[M]ore than half of the agricultural crises in the study region can be associated with cooling caused by volcanism.
Greenhouse Effect Not the Main Driver of Climate
Blaauw, 2017
This paper demonstrates that globalwarming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory
Munshi, 2017
…No evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.
Reinhart, 2017
Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change
Climate Models are Unreliable/The Pause is Real
Blackall, 2017
The science publication Nature Climate Change this year published a study demonstrating Earth this century warmed substantially less than computer-generated climate models predict. Unfortunately for public knowledge, such findings don’t appear in the news.
Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017
Observations indicate that the Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly retreating while the Antarctic sea ice cover is steadily expanding. State-of-the-art climate models, by contrast, typically simulate a moderate decrease in both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers.
Ahlström et al., 2017
We conclude that climate bias-induced uncertainties must be decreased to make accurate coupled atmosphere-carbon cycle projections.
Zhou and Wang, 2017
Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global “warming hiatus”
Just a sampling for you.
Gabro,
Li et al
“It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations…”
The bolded words give a clue. Yes, it has. This paper on N China over 22 centuries isn’t overturning. Solar activity can have an effect, and is allowed for in climate models. The reason it is doscounted for recent is that none that could explain the warming has been observed.
Tejedor et al
I’ll let Tejedor himself speak here (June 2017)
But it is still there and being quoted.
Belohpetsky et al., 2017
It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation
Yes, it is. An absolutely mainstream statement.
Munshi, 2017
…No evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.
Likewise no-one ever said otherwise.
You have quoted Reinhart – that is not a published paper, just something on a blog.
etc etc
Nick,
Of course academics have to claim that they’re not attacking the orthodoxy. Being found a heretic is a sure way to end your career.
IPCC does not have a clue what all the solar effects are, so can’t possibly account for them in its modeling.
Gabro
“Of course academics have to claim that they’re not attacking the orthodoxy. “
This is pathetic. You quote papers supposed to be rejecting the consensus, then when they say you’re misreprsenting them, all you can say is that, well, they are the sort of people that would say that for their careers. These are the people you chose to quote to make your case. And they are saying you are full of …
Nick,
I won’t mention what you might be full of if you really doubt that academics are afraid to be called d@niers.
Please show that any of the papers cited is actually misrepresented in the NTZ article.
Or be known as pathetic.
Gabro
“Please show that any of the papers cited is actually misrepresented in the NTZ article.”
I did that extensively in comments above. And of the 58 authors on the earlier list, 26 pointed out, with detail, how they had been misrepresented. for example
Feng Sheng Hu, Professor, University of Illinois
The graph they claimed was evidence from my article in fact was NOT even a result of [ours]. It’s a graph in an article we cited.
David Reynolds, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Cardiff University (and co-authors)
The article uses Figure 11 from Reynolds et al., 2017 without displaying the figure caption. The caption for this figure clearly states that the data shown have been detrended using a simple linear function in order to highlight the high-frequency (sub-centennial) mean annual sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies.
And even your most recent post with quotes, just has many things that just don’t contradict orthodox science. Even the cherry-picked quote from Tejedor just says that the Grand Minima (solar) may have been driven by Solar activity. The AR5 has a box on this (5.1). And while there are different theories on whether global effects were more influenced by solar or volcanic, they do say that regional changes could be drived by solar, and describe a mechanism. One of the regions they nominate for this period is N Atlantic. So there is nothing revolutionary about your quote.
Nick,
IPCC makes all kinds of statements in its technical sections, but they aren’t reflected in its summary for policymakers. Indeed they’re ignored in favor of CO2 as the predominant forcing, for which there is no evidence in the technical sections.
“which raises grave doubts about the 400 papers thing:”
Snopes is a far-left juvenile minded twerp, that made a name for himself debunking urban myths and nonsense trivial.
Pity he sided with the AGW scam and NEVER bother doing investigations of the lies and deceit from Mann, Gore etc etc etc etc..
The Snopes article is trivial and MEANINGLESS.
Here’s a graph from one of the papers (if it comes through; if not, it’s Fig. 8 in Tejedor, et al):
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=89558d4863&view=fimg&th=15f5ff2ea8367a0d&attid=0.0.2&disp=emb&attbid=ANGjdJ_GgwImgdcKtBQlix7gBHP4OuAyyOkiYehhHw0ApfbPoUljs_qnCQLiW6pjri3WfkLPn5wB7WO7a0f7IEeOhMCCtKt5Bl9BEOzgSaVUhV9Ndm0KNJ-SQeSP8K4&sz=w1602-h1112&ats=1509143282308&rm=15f5ff2ea8367a0d&zw&atsh=1
Tejedor, et al., 2017:
https://www.clim-past.net/13/93/2017/cp-13-93-2017.pdf
Unlike Mann, they use tree ring records properly.
“Fig. 8 in Tejedor, et al”
I quoted above Tejedor saying that his paper has been thoroughly misrepresented by NTZ.
The paper says what it says. The author doesn’t want to be tarred with the d@nier brush.
It would indeed be a misrepresentation if it was claimed that the Tejedor paper supports the position that “Global Warming Is A Myth”. NTZ did not write that particular headline and claim that Tejedor et al. (2017) supports that headline.
An exact quotation from the Tejedor paper appears on the list because it indicates that high and low solar activity, including recent decades, correspond with warming and cooling periods.
There is no NTZ claim that the Iberian Peninsula represents the globe, nor that Tejedor et al. (2017) support the position that the globe has not warmed.
Tejedor et al., 2017
http://www.clim-past.net/13/93/2017/cp-13-93-2017.pdf
“Reconstructed long-term temperature variations match reasonably well with solar irradiance changes since warm and cold phases correspond with high and low solar activity, respectively. … The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity. The beginning of the reconstruction starts with the end of the Spörer minimum. The Maunder minimum, from 1645 to 1715 (Luterbacher et al., 2001) seems to be consistent with a cold period from 1645 to 1706. In addition, the Dalton minimum from 1796 to 1830 is detected for the period 1810 to 1838. However, a considerably cold period from 1778 to 1798 is not in agreement with a decrease in the solar activity. Four warm periods – 1626–1637, 1800–1809, 1845– 1859, and 1986–2012 – have been identified to correspond to increased solar activity.”
It is rather ironic that blogger Alex Kasprak of “snopes” has purposely misrepresented what the graph shows that he claims was misrepresented.
?w=528
?w=563
He writes: “For example, NTZ misrepresented a graph from a 2017 paper that intentionally removed the long term global warming trend so researchers could investigate other trends in the record — a fact that went unmentioned in his post. NTZ reported on the graph (below) as if it were evidence that global temperatures were flat, despite the fact that the post had intentionally and explicitly removed that signal”
In the graph subset he provided, the red line represents the SST anomaly, which would show a trend if there was one, for the North Atlantic. In other words, the red line is not detrended. The black line is, yes, but considering the black line shows no obvious diversion from the non-de-trended red line, and both show no obvious warming trajectory since the 1800s, it is hardly a misrepresentation to show the black and red lines together…which is why it was included on the list without taking the time to remove the black line.
Alex’s critique, on the other hand, is itself a misrepresentation, as he tries to claim that (1) the entire graph, and not just the black line, is detrended, and he claims that (2) the subsequent graph of the North Atlantic showing a warming trend….
…is what actually appeared in the paper. That graph Alex produced showing a long-term warming in the North Atlantic did not appear in the paper, however, meaning the “fact checker” has just misrepresented Reynolds et al. (2017) by claiming a graph that did not appear in the paper actually did appear in the paper.
Kasprak also falsely claims that the Reynolds et al. (2017) graph was reported at NTZ as evidence that global temperatures have been flat. Nowhere has it been reported at NTZ that graphs of the North Atlantic region are evidence of global-scale change. Alex has concocted a false argument.
Furthermore, graphs of the North Atlantic that also show no obvious long-term warming trend are abundant in the literature. It would appear that the graph Kasprak located is an exception, and yet he presented that graph as if it represented the “real” data showing a long-term warming. Here are just a few of the many reconstructions of North Atlantic SSTs (and OHC) that do not support this claim/misrepresentation.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Mark-16.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Kim-2017.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SST-Bird-2011.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-OHC-Duchez-16.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Irminger-Sea-North-Atlantic-de-Jong-16.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/North-Atlantic-Cooling-OHC-Piecuch-2017.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-Western-Subtropical-Saenger-11.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Chafik-16.jpg
In my view, it is unfortunate that the author of a conservative website (which I personally neither frequent or side with – quite the opposite) has chosen to entitle his article the way he did. Global warming is not a myth. Much of the globe has indeed warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age (1450-1900). It would be my assumption that James Delingpole chose the words “Global Warming Is A Myth” – and then claimed that 400 papers supported this statement – so as to attract wide attention. (If so, this effort appears to have been successful.) I would also assume that JD knows that the introductory narrative for the article on NTZ explicitly does not state that these 400 papers “prove” that global warming is a myth. Instead of re-stating what these papers are intended to do here, I would ask for those interested to read the first 5 paragraphs of the article’s description:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
Kasprak’s claim that “NTZ” has employed straw man arguments in compiling these papers is, itself, a series of straw man arguments. One would think that “fact checkers” should not be concocting false narratives.
Nowhere was it stated in the NTZ article that “no other drivers of climate whatsoever” are a required characteristic of AGW. Kasprak has simply made up this charge. On the other hand, it is true that Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate has claimed that the “consensus” IPCC position is that ~100% of the warming since 1951 is human caused:
—
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/
“The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!)."
—
Nowhere has it been stated that AGW “requires every location on earth to respond to climate variables in the same way.” This straw man argument concocted by Kasprak borders on the ridiculous. Again, he’s just making this charge up.
No, it’s not entirely model-based. The warming evidence itself, as well as sea level rise and glacier melt, are to a significant degree rooted in observation. But models do play a prominent role in the evidence-gathering process. So the claim that NTZ has stated AGW evidence is entirely model-based is a made up charge.
Ken,
Glad to have your comments here, and thanks for all the tedious work you went through.
Kenneth
“It is rather ironic that blogger Alex KasThe caption says that prak of “snopes” has purposely misrepresented what the graph shows that he claims was misrepresented.”
The real issue here is that of the 56 papers that you included in your June list, 26 authors protested (in June) that their papers did not support what you had claimed, and in various respects had been mis-represented. But they are still in the October list. So Reynolds objected to the cutting of the caption, but it is still there in October, without caption.
If the author is telling you you have it wrong, it’s a heavy lift to establish otherwise. And you fail here. The caption says of the red line that it is
“Reconstructed high frequency (sub-centennial) mean annual SST anomalies based on the SST-SC series (red line). “
High frequency anomalies. Sub-centennial. It comes from a PCA analysis. Low frequencies have been reduced or removed, and that certainly includes a linear trend over the period. Neither curve is meant to indicate long-term trend.
Kenneth,
“It would be my assumption that James Delingpole chose the words “Global Warming Is A Myth” – and then claimed that 400 papers supported this statement – so as to attract wide attention.”
This is disingenuous. The same headline appeared in June as later in in October. WUWT runs a headline saying that the papers debunk climate change alarm. Have you tried to do anything about this repeated misrepresentation?
I see that Delingpole has a new post up at Breitbart headed
“Delingpole: An Impertinent Pup from Snopes Tried to Fact-Check Me on Global Warming. Here’s My Reply…”
It included these charming bits:
“I do this for two reasons.
First because publicly humiliating one’s enemies is always fun.
Second, because these climate alarmists use the same old tricks again and again to prop up their junk science scam. It’s always a good idea to expose these tricks, to show the guy behind the curtain pulling all the levers, because once you know what these people’s game is, their dark magic loses its power.
That’s how I became one of the world’s most notorious and widely-read climate skeptics: not because I have a science degree – which I don’t – but because I am able to explain this dogs breakfast of a shambles of a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer in language that normal people can understand..”
Doesn’t sound like factual accuracy rates very highly. And as for the facts that so many authors repudiate what is said about their papers:
“And no, it doesn’t at all undermine my case some of the scientists who wrote these papers object to the context in which I have framed their research.”
He takes Gabro’s line. They are saying their papers are misrepresented because of Naked Fear, Dishonesty and Dimness. We’ll go with the cherry picked phrases, thank you. We know what you meant better than you do.
But the irony is that these fearful, dishonest and dim scientists are supposed to be also the courageous witnesses revealing that “Global Warming is a Myth”. Or even “Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”.
I just wrote a comment noting Delingpole’s new postt up at Breitbart headed
“Delingpole: An Impertinent Pup from Snopes Tried to Fact-Check Me on Global Warming. Here’s My Reply…”
It’s in moderation. I’m pretty sure that is from Delingpole’s language that I quoted, not mine.
Nick,
I read that.
Who knows what gets you moderated? Besides a few obvious words.
Gabro,
“Who knows what gets you moderated?”
Well, I can find out. I’ll repeat below what I said, with the quotes from Delingpole omitted.
Kenneth,
“It would be my assumption that James Delingpole chose the words “Global Warming Is A Myth” – and then claimed that 400 papers supported this statement – so as to attract wide attention.”
This is disingenuous. The same headline appeared in June as later in in October. WUWT runs a headline saying that the papers debunk climate change alarm. Have you tried to do anything about this repeated misrepresentation?
I see that Delingpole has a new post up at Breitbart headed
“Delingpole: An Impertinent Pup from Snopes Tried to Fact-Check Me on Global Warming. Here’s My Reply…”
He takes Gabro’s line. They are saying their papers are misrepresented because of Naked Fear, Dishonesty and Dimness. We’ll go with the cherry picked phrases, thank you. We know what you meant better than you do.
But the irony is that these fearful, dishonest and dim scientists are supposed to be also the courageous witnesses revealing that “Global Warming is a Myth”. Or even “Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”.
Yup
It’s disingenuous to assume that James Delingpole wrote a poignant headline designed to grab readers’ attention and get 100s of thousands of views? Why is that a disingenuous assumption, Nick?
Yes. The first one actually was about global warming. This one was about climate science as a whole. I assume Delingpole was this time using “global warming” as a sweeping title for all the narratives in the modern climate change debate. I can’t control what he writes. Nor can I control which websites choose to share it or how they use it. It’s on the web, so it’s free game. I have to just accept the fact that sometimes the work I do is going to be characterized in a way not of my choosing.
Yes, I wouldn’t have used the word “debunk”. Too strong. That’s why I use less affirmative phrases like “undermine” and “do not support”. But my opening narrative was shown here…and it’s good to have others see the prevalence of scientific papers supporting skeptical positions.
Um, what, exactly, could I possibly do? And what is it that you are trying to get across here? That I should be more careful with how other people write their headlines?
26 authors protested that their papers did not support my claims? Who are those authors, and what is the specific claim that I made that they protested? Assuming Kasprak falsely told them that being included on the list means that they agree “global warming is a myth” – a claim that I did not make – I will likewise assume that these authors have been fed false information about the reason for their inclusion. That’s what Kasprak does, after all.
Again, “global warming is a myth” isn’t my claim. It’s a straw man to say that it is. I agree with them that writing that they agree that global warming is a myth would be a misrepresentation.
In presenting those papers, it was actually said that the reconstructions do not support the “consensus” position that the warming we’ve enjoyed in the last 80 years or so is unprecedented, remarkable, and globally synchronous. Instead, the warming falls well within the range of natural variability. Here’s the exact wording:
And Nick, high frequency SST anomalies are not detrended. They do show warming trends (if there are any). The Reynolds graph of North Atlantic SSTs, like many other graphs depicting long-term trends for the North Atlantic, frequently do not show long-term warming. I can provide many more examples in addition to the ones already shown. In the last decade, actually, the NA’s temperatures have plummeted to 1950s levels.
Do you defend Kasprak’s decision to claim that a graph from another paper showing a clear warming trend is what appeared in the Reynolds paper…when it clearly did not? Assuming you do, why would you defend such misrepresentation?
Kenneth,
“Assuming Kasprak falsely told them that being included on the list means that they agree “global warming is a myth” – a claim that I did not make – I will likewise assume that these authors have been fed false information about the reason for their inclusion. That’s what Kasprak does, after all.”
Kaprak did not assemble those author responses. That was done in June by Climate Feedback, here. The authors (listed) were invited to respond to the Breitbart column of the time. But most sound as if they wouldn’t be comfortable with your classification either. In fact, they are basically responding to your document, which is the only one with details (you don’t get that from Delingpole). And Tejedor specifically asked to be removed from your list.
“Do you defend Kasprak’s decision to claim that a graph from another paper showing a clear warming trend…”
Sorry, I can’t see where he did that. He cited Reynolds, who pointed out in his Climate Feedback result, that there was a trend and showed that other graph as evidence.
But all those who objected to Cook’s subjective assignments of their papers to arrive at the totally bogus 97% don’t count, right?
Exactly as I suspected, Nick. I did not write the Breitbart headline, and the article by Breitbart did not accurately portray the reason for those papers’ inclusion. And so, of course, neither does the question they answered “No” to represent the reason for their inclusion. It was indeed clearly not stipulated in the NTZ article that papers compiled for inclusion on that list were supporting “evidence against modern climate change caused by human activities”.
As I thought would be the case, Kasprak made up a question that misrepresented the article(s) so as to get the response he wanted. And here you are falsely stating that these scientists disputed my claims even though it is quite clear that I have not made the claims you are here accusing me of making. Straw man arguments is what these are. The original article doesn’t even mention “climate change caused by human activities”. It just said that more and more reconstructions of past temperatures do not support hockey stick-shaped graphs. Which is a verifiably true statement…even though you do not want it to be.
How pathetic. Kasprak concocts straw man arguments to get the answers to questions he is seeking so that he can write what he was going to write in the first place. And this is what “fact checking” is. I’m quite unimpressed.
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/
Here are 350 non-hockey stick graphs from around the world. The list is growing by the week. It will likely reach into the 500s within a year. At some point someone on your side is going to have to acknowledge the obvious: proxy reconstructions of past temperature do not support the position that modern warming is remarkable, unprecedented, or globally synchronous. That’s what I wrote.
And no, the snopes “rebuttal” article presents a graph that shows a warming trend in the North Atlantic that did not appear in the Reynolds paper. Kasprak presents this graph as if it actually came from the paper, but was removed (by me) so as to duplicitously conceal the real North Atlantic graph that shows a warming trend. This is dishonest. This is a misrepresentation. And you, as expected, have defended this behavior.
Kenneth,
“As I thought would be the case, Kasprak made up a question that misrepresented the article(s) so as to get the response he wanted.”
I don’t know if you have read the document that I have now linked many times, but, yet again, Kasprak did not make up those questions. He had nothing to do with it. The people responsible were, Benjamin Cook of Columbia U, Dan Jones of British Antarctic Survey, Patrick Brown of Carnegie Institution, Peter Neff of Rochester, and Shaun Lovejoy of McGill. And it was done back in June, not for this Snopes article. But the question is largely irrelevant; what matters is what the authors say, which is actually in response to what you said in the blog post. For example,
“Nathan Steiger, Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University
The blog post maliciously tampered with figures from my paper, removing lines from the figures. My paper is just not relevant to the arguments about global warming.”
The question he was asked is hardly relevant.
“And no, the snopes “rebuttal” article presents a graph that shows a warming trend in the North Atlantic that did not appear in the Reynolds paper. Kasprak presents this graph as if it actually came from the paper, but was removed (by me) so as to duplicitously conceal the real North Atlantic graph that shows a warming trend.”
He did not do that at all. He was quite clear on the status of the graph, and where it came from. Here it is, as he presented it, with my underlining:
Thank you Nick for proving that Kenneth is TOTALLY CORRECT when he says that sdopes is presenting a graph that WAS NOT in the original paper.
Climate feedback is a NOTHING but far-left AGW propaganda unit.
You know that.
Quoting from them is MEANINGLESS.
Their facts, are heir own facts.
their, not heir. !!
Again, Kasprak decides to omit the fact that the graph itself does contain a trended SST anomaly, claiming the entire graph is detrended even though it is not. The paper was included on the list precisely because it contained the red trended temperature (which did not show a warming trend either).
But OK, I will hereby remove the Reynolds graph that shows the red trended SSTs along side the black de-trended lines. One less graph of the North Atlantic showing no hockey stick warming trend will subsequently be replaced by another graph of the North Atlantic showing no hockey stick warming. It’s not like they are in short supply.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Kim-2017.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Irminger-Sea-North-Atlantic-de-Jong-16.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Northeastern-Atlantic-OHC-Rosenthal-17.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Li-17.jpg
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-misrepresents-research-58-scientific-papers-falsely-claim-disprove-human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/
Its quite obvious from the rebuttals from so many of the scientists who authored the papers themselves, that there are no “57 Papers” and undoubtedly no “400 papers” that debunk AGW,
You continue to pretend to yourselves that this is an ideological battle. If you love your ideology so much, you’d be wiser to accommodate the largely settled fact of AGW into it rather than deny and misrepresent the science. James Hansen is no “watermelon greenie” and pushes a solution, the carbon fee, which is perfectly compatible with free market capitalism even if Koch et al want to convince you otherwise. If you fail to support free market solutions, the day will come when a totalitarian solution will be forced on you, because the climate system is only going to undergo further disruption from here on out.
[lol, “Koch et al”, “totalitarian solution forced on us by nature”? – now who’s tilting at windmills? At least get your numbers right 57 is not 58 and 58 is not 400. Note also that “climate feedback” is a protectionist website -mod]
This is clear evidence that Rick Cina (AKA Kenneth Richard) contextomizes and misprespresents the studies on NTZ. In case anyone hasn”t noticed he never directly links to the studies he claims support his view; rather he links to a NTZ mashup. This is only slightly better than CO2science which provide no links to the studies they misrepresent. At least NTZ took down one article that was not a peer-reviewed publication, as it had failed review and was not published. NTZ also has no clue about the problems associated with predatory journals.
Indeed Jack
For those that ‘believe’ Delingpole and NTZ – and wouldn’t dream to question…..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY
should say “not a single one” rather than “none of the one”.
Nick Stokes himself says, “I’m not a typical climate scientist; in fact, I’m not a climate scientist at all.”
So much for his credibility on anything to do with Climate Scince ….. he is nothing but an uneducated, blow..hard, preaching the Alarmist Hysteria Gospel.