Facebook Removed False Label After Scientists Said Climate ‘Alarmist’ Fact Checkers Are Targeting Them

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter

September 24, 2019 4:17 PM ET

  • Facebook removed a fact check after climate scientists said a partisan fact-checking group the company uses is defaming them.
  • Another Facebook fact checker came under criticism after nixing an editorial from a pair of climatologists about the problems with climate models.
  • “Facebook is on a slippery slope,” one of the scientists said, referring to the company’s decision to allow supposedly partisan fact checkers to squash legitimate forms of science.

Facebook removed a false label on an editorial that expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of climate models after the scientists who authored the piece said the company relied on partisan activists to fact check their op-ed.

A Facebook spokeswoman confirmed on background the company removed the label. The decision comes shortly after scientists Caleb Rossiter and Patrick Michaels argued their point in a Sept. 10 letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg. They said in the letter that Facebook used a partisan fact-check group to defame them.

“These actions by Facebook constitute censorship of science and defamation of our scholarship,” the academics said in the letter, which the Daily Caller News Foundation obtained. “They appear to us to contradict Facebook’s stated role as a non-partisan site for the ex- change of opinion and information.”

Rossiter is a climate statistician and the executive director for CO2 Coalition, a Virginia-based group of 50 climate scientists who use research to explain why they believe people should not be alarmed by the rise in carbon dioxide. Michaels, meanwhile, is a climatologist and one of the group’s senior fellows.

They also argued Facebook’s reliance on a group called Climate Feedback to review the credibility of information they used in an Aug. 25 editorial at the Washington Examiner is a cudgel against free speech. Facebook used the group’s review to label Rossiter and Michaels’s points false.

The Washington Examiner is considering its own response to the fact check, Hugo Gurdon, the editor-in-chief at the paper, told the DCNF in an email. The DCNF has independently confirmed Facebook removed the label, though the big tech company has not yet explained why the false label was removed.

Rossiter and Michaels want an explanation in the meantime.

Pictured is a Facebook bcreenshot of a fact check of a Washington Examiner editorial by Patrick Michaels and Caleb Rossiter.

Pictured is a Facebook screenshot of a fact check of a Washington Examiner editorial by Patrick Michaels and Caleb Rossiter.

Climate Feedback’s review is “replete with errors and simple differences of opinion,” they argued in the letter to Zuckerberg. The editorial suggested a variety of serious issues in choice of climate data sets often lead researchers to believe global temperatures are rising more than is observed.

Rossiter and Michaels cited data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration among others to make their points. The information was not sufficient for Climate Feedback’s reviewers, who said in their Aug. 31 review that the duo used cherry-picked data and biased information to support their positions.

Rossiter and Michaels said Climate Feedback itself is a hyper-partisan entity.

They argued the group is funded by Eric Michelman, a wealthy climate activist who said in an interview in 2015 for Yes! Magazine that the science surrounding climate change is settled. He also said at the time that the time for debate is over.

Climate Feedback works in partnership with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which Facebook relies on for credible fact checks. Groups the IFCN partners with must abide by a strict set of principles to maintain the partnership, with one of the principles being a promise to be non-partisan.

The Washington Examiner challenged Climate Feedback’s assessment, but the website refused to back down, Jennifer Yingling, a representative for the paper’s publisher, told the DCNF in an email thread.

“This is a regurgitation from and by the ‘fact checking’ body. Facebook has clearly outsourced not just the ‘fact checking’ but the appeals process to this alarmist advocacy group,” Rossiter told the DCNF, referring to feedback the website provided him and Michaels when the Washington Examiner requested a review of the fact check.

Patrick Michaels talks to Mark Levin on Fox News. (YouTube/screenshot)

Michaels made similar comments. “I think Facebook is on a slippery slope on whether it can intrude on science issues where there is significant disagreement such as what happened here. Any fact checker can cite the data we cited and find that they are legit and highly respected,” he said in an interview with the DCNF. The reviewers disagreed.

Michaels and Rossiter’s claims are not credible, according to Andrew Dessler, a climatologist and professor at Texas A&M University, and one of the academics responsible for the review of the Washington Examiner piece.

“I judge their response to be ‘false’. It contains factual errors as well as lazy, bad science,” Dessler told the DCNF, citing comments from environmental economist Zeke Hausfather who said in a Sept. 5 Twitter thread that there hasn’t been a 14-year pause in global warming. Dessler maintains that Rossiter and Michaels are wrong — there is no problem with climate models.

The other researchers involved in the fact check did not provide a statement, nor did Climate Feedback.

Michelman has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment through More Than Scientists, a group he founded in 2006.

This is not the first time Facebook has gotten criticized over its fact-checking process.(RELATED: Sen Hawley Says Zuckerberg Told Him There ‘Was Clearly Bias’ In The LiveAction Fact Check)

The tech company was criticised after an Aug. 30 fact check, published in Health Feedback, targeted an Aug. 9 video from anti-abortion group Live Action that included the statement “abortion is never medically necessary.”

The fact checker also nixed a separate video Live Action shared that featured Dr. Kendra Kolb also saying, “Abortion is never medically necessary.” Dr. Jennifer Gunter is listed in an updated version of the fact check’s read more section.

Gunter, who authored a book called “The Vagina Bible,” has openly criticized Live Action and its founder Lila Rose on Twitter, calling Rose on Aug. 31 “a forced birther who knows nothing about medical care.” Zuckerberg acknowledged in September to Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican, that the fact check of Live Action was done in a biased way.

75 thoughts on “Facebook Removed False Label After Scientists Said Climate ‘Alarmist’ Fact Checkers Are Targeting Them

  1. Facebook engages in blatantly partisan censorship? They hire partisan fact checkers, allowing to them to use the plausible deniability defense? Huh, how ’bout that. /sarc

    • Wish I could sic these fact checkers on the idiots who infest my FB feed about things like “December 2019 will have 5 Mondays!!! This happens only every 874 years!!!!”

      Also: every year I have to reach back to Grade 6 science class and inform people that, no, it isn’t the lower temperatures in fall that make the leaves change colour and fall…”

      • “December 2019 will have 5 Mondays!!! This happens only every 874 years!!!!”

        December has 31 days.
        There are seven possible days for any month to start.
        Any December that begins on a Saturday, Sunday, or Monday, will have 5 Mondays.
        So 3 in seven years will have 5 Monday’s in December.
        Almost half the time.

        • Oh, I know the math. And YOU know the math.

          I’m just trying to point out that so many people on social media who will deride others for being “anti-science” have some pretty provably bad beliefs. (And I won’t even go into the ones who have drank deep of the Climate Apocalypse Kool-Aid and who also bore me with astrology, ghosts, angels, lucky numbers, chiropractic [one is actually an animal chiropractor] , etc.)

          BTW, I learned this years ago when I devoured encyclopedias as a kid (hey, come to think about it, I would probably be considered autistic if they tested me…): there are only 7 days, so January 1 can only fall on one of them, so start with 7 calendars…add 7 for leap years and voila! Years repeat!

          Or shorter answer: we both just described why casinos make so much money.

          • The one I loved seeing a while back was, “This year Halloween will fall on Friday the 13th. This only happens every 1,300 years.”

            At least that one was obviously a self-aware joke. (Unlike the annual, “On XXX date Mars will be as large as the full moon in the sky.”

          • I learned this as a kid, 7 I think.
            Because the phone book used to have a single page which had a calendar with each of those 14 possible permutations in a 3×5 grid, and the 15th panel was a list of which calendar to use for each year, for some huge number of years, as many as would fit I think.
            So, even though just a young kid, it was clear that only 14 possible calendars existed.

      • @ Caligula Jones

        no, it isn’t the lower temperatures in fall that make the leaves change colour

        But it is an early “frost” that produces the most vividly bright foliage colors, ….. right.

        • Sure, but words like “vividly bright” are a bit subjective. Seriously, the older people get, the more they complain that “the leaves aren’t very nice this year”.

          Yes, frosts help, and droughts as well.

          But its truly one of those “correlation is not causation things”.

          • Caligula, as a learned student in/of the natural sciences, including a required Botany credit, and my 75 years of experiences and observations in the “natural world” around me, …… I assure you that my posted comments are not, in any way, directly or indirectly, attributed to …… “correlation = causation”.

            And GEE OH WHIZ, …. I was justa bout to explain things to you when I noticed that yirgach (September 25, 2019 at 7:33 pm) …… beat me to it.

            Anyway, I’ll respond to your “bit subjective” comment about leaf colors, to wit:

            Here in the US, ….. the Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) is noted for its “vividly bright” fall colors, especially the younger trees. Click the afore noted hyper-link or click HERE or HERE to see pictures. Iffen you still want to imply my description is “subjective”, so be it.

            And I will further explain the following, to wit:

            yirgachAs autumn progresses, trees prepare for winter by stopping the production of chlorophyll, the green pigment that captures light. The leaves gradually change color as nutrients are withdrawn and transferred to roots and stems.

            All the colors (sugars) that a leaf will ever be are contained in the leaf after photosynthesis begins, with chlorophyll (green) being dominant when the leaf is, per se, alive. But in the autumn, as the amount of daylight decreases, the chlorophyll disintegrates (decreases) and the colors (sugars) are transported to the roots, a process that normally takes 2 to 3 weeks, and with most trees, the leaves will turn from “green” to a light “brown” before falling off the branches. And that “green to brown” is why the older people complain that “the leaves aren’t very nice this year”.

            And guess what, Caligula, …… their complaints are caused by, ….. TA DA, …… “global warming”, …. or to be more realistic, it’s the result of “winter warming”.

            The cold temps, freezes and frosts that were once fairly common in the lowlands in late August, September and October are getting as scares as hen’s teeth now days. (Mountainous regions usually always have pretty leaf colors … because of the “cold” due high elevations.)

            Now I’m not sure iffen the “cold” zaps the chlorophyll or just stops its production, but anyway, before the tree can transport the sugars to the roots, ……the “green” color disappears and the other colors (red, orange, yellow) of the “sugars” can be seen. Oak trees are one of the odd ones, its leaves turn from “green” to “dark red” and refuse to fall off like most other trees.

            So, leaves turn from “green to bright colors” due to freezes and frosts, ….. whereas leaves turn from “green to brown” due to slow cool-downs and droughts.

          • Well, thanks for proving my point re: nitpicking.

            My other point was: dumb people think leaves turn because it gets colder the same time it gets darker earlier (and lighter later, before you correct THAT :-)…). That was the co-relation I was speaking of.

            I will of course trust, but verify your claims re: frost. I’m from Northern Canada, my 88 year dad worked in the wood bush and I’ve been cutting wood with him there since the 70s myself.

            So I’ll run the local temps for August to October and try to non-subjectively search my memory (and perhaps the family snaps) to see if I’m getting as old as I think. You know, science-like.

          • Nitpicking, ……. HUH?

            And “trust, but verify”, …….. sure you will. HA

            And iffen you are from Northern Canada, and you and your 88 year dad worked at cutting timber in the bush for the past 49 years, then it is understandable why your practical knowledge about the “life cycle” of deciduous (hardwood) trees is little more that what you have been told or read from a book.

            DUH, when you speak of Northern Canada you are talking about high latitude boreal forests consisting mostly of conifers whose needles (leaves) are “green” in color. And they don’t all fall off or attain brilliant colors in the autumn .

            Ells bells, ….. I’ve been to Alaska, ….. and Canada, 3 different times, two (2) different 3-week long hunting trips into the “bush” of northern BC. But the BIG timber is in Southern Canada, even some “hardwoods” here n’ there.

            Nitpicking, ……. HUH? …… Well, I guess that is what all good teachers do.

            Talking factual science is not “nitpicking” ….. except to the “know-it-alls” who detest injected facts.

        • Unless the science has become less settled since I was in grade school back in the 70s…they change because they run on photosynthesis.

          Fewer daylight hours, less sun, something something sugar stops being produced, missing a bit here…leaves go from green to reds, yellows and oranges, then go brown.

          I’m sure someone will be here to nitpick. Stay tuned.

          • Here’s a good general overview of the process:

            As autumn progresses, trees prepare for winter by stopping the production of chlorophyll, the green pigment that captures light. The leaves gradually change color as nutrients are withdrawn and transferred to roots and stems. At the same time, enzymes digest the cells at the base of the leaf stalk forming an abscission layer or scar. When digestion is complete, the leaf falls off.

            Dormancy is brought on by a change in the levels of plant hormones. Short day length is the most important environmental cue that stimulates the onset of dormancy and leaf fall. For that reason, in cities, trees closest to street lamps are often the last to lose their leaves. Drought will also hasten the onset of leaf fall, causing trees to shed their leaves earlier following a dry spring and summer. On the other hand, superabundant watering or hard pruning stimulates vigorous growth which delays the onset of dormancy.


          • Well that explains why leaf fall is almost 1 month later here than usual. We had a very wet summer. Our summers are normally close to drought dry, with leaves turning colour in middle to 3/4 through August. This year it was middle of September.

          • Just to comment on

            Samuel C Cogar September 26, 2019 at 7:43 am

            re: “vividly bright”, etc.

            Pulled the data from where I grew up from https://www.weatherstats.ca/ (my goto site)

            Looked at the number of “frosts”, or at least below zero TMin per decade for Sept + Oct:

            40 13.1
            50 12.1
            60 11.9
            70 14.4
            80 14.1
            90 13.4
            00 12.2
            10 10.2

            So, yep: if early frosts indeed make the colours more vividly bright, then the 70s were your decade and the last decade have been positively meh…

          • HHHUUUUUMMMMM, ….. now that read like one of those ….. “correlation is not causation thingys”.

            Today is October 27, 2019 (09-27-19), ….. and in central West Virginia, USA, situate at approximately latitude 38.7N, without having much rain in the past 3 months (Aug, Sep & Oct) and with daytime temperatures in the high 80’s and low 90’a ….. and nighttime temps never falling below 55F, therefore no freezing or frosting (-32F) has occurred. And no frosts or freezing is expected for the next 6 days, given the forecast daily high temps of ….. 86F, 85F, 88F, 87F, 91F and 91F.

            Now it appears that 98% of the deciduous tree foliage is still dark “green” herein my locale, including the two Sugar Maples and an extremely large “Pig-nut” Hickory tree that I am currently observing out of my window. Now there is a small Dogwood (in the shadow of the Hickory) whose leaves have turned a “rusty” reddish brown color (probably due to lack of water).

            So, unless Mother Nature “whaps” us with non-forecasted “freeze”, those “green” growing trees will still be “up-stomataing” CO2 at least thru the 1st week of October. “HA”, if not for that thar CAGW those aforenoted trees would surely be decked out in their ”fall colors” and shedding them like crazy.

    • Gee, who would have thought a rumor mill such as Facebook would be a reliable source of valid information.
      Certainly not me.
      Therein lies a real problem: scientific “knowledge” is being “learned-on-the-street”.

      “You been tellin’ me you’re a genius
      Since you were seventeen
      In all the time I’ve known you
      I still don’t know what you mean
      The weekend at the college
      Didn’t turn out like you planned
      The things that pass for knowledge
      I can’t understand”
      – Steely Dan

    • The truth is now only what the thought police moderators, authorised by the ministry of truth and propaganda, says it is. The Orwellian world has arrived.

  2. Back in the early days of the internet, before websites and blogs, when people debated through listservs, a group was trying to develop an online encyclopedia (this was very pre-Wikipedia). The paradigm was the premiere print version – Encyclopedia Brittanica which contained articles by authorities. It was recognized that anybody could author and edit online so how could readers know if the information was reliable? One suggestion was SOAPs — seals of approval by recognizable groups — that readers could use to judge the material. If a group you respected gave its SOAP, then you might find the endorsement convincing.

    Of course, we can think of reasons why SOAPs might be unworkable. Back then, nobody realized how huge the volume of information would become. Yet I wonder if some version of SOAPs might get FB and other social media out of the conundrum they have of editing and censorship.

    • The SOAP concept is (officially) what these people are using, Gary.

      The problem with SOAP is – what groups are “legitimate” arbiters of fact? With very few exceptions, the Facebook “fact checkers” are thoroughly left wing, because those organizations are what the Facebook people think are reliable. Of course, that only outsources the bias.

  3. Facebook is no different than Google which conducts the same kinds of scientifically unsupported climate alarmist politically driven propaganda deletions, disparaging commentary and invalid criticisms of scientific data that challenged their biased and ignorant climate science viewpoints.

  4. Rabid alarmists have taken over the ‘fact checking’ role at Facebook, just as they have done at Wikipedia, other media, universities and colleges. Their ‘fact checking’ is nothing more than open censorship of honest science.

  5. It looks like the same crass manipulation of the Wikipedia pages. Blatant, in-your-face denials that anyone outside their group has anything valid to say.

    The charge that the authors were “lazy” is extraordinary given that the censors haven’t bothered to check the public records properly. Neither have they learned from history what happens when broad-based misrepresentation and over-interpretation are substituted for proper investigation and logical, deductive analysis.

    If CO2 were a major driver of the global temperature it would already have increased 8 degrees since 1850. Perhaps 9. It has risen 1 degree.

    Something is wrong with their models. Their forecasts of the temperature anomaly are barely within an order of magnitude of the correct answer.

  6. Is Facebook really the best platform for disseminating serious scientific information? I always saw it as a means for nobodies to give their lives meaning by posting minute details about it to anyone who cares.

    • Don’t be so hard on people who use Facebook. I have relatives all over the country, and it’s a good way to stay in touch, trade pictures, etc.

      • That’s why I started using it: tried Classmates and a few other places, then noticed my wife was finding some old friends.

        Then again…finding old friends, you sometimes realized why you didn’t keep in touch for 25 years anyway…

  7. The solution for all of this grief is for Facebook and others to stop making decisions about what is real and what is false, and just allow the internet to be free from all censorship. I have no problem with encountering false information alongside valid information. It forces me to evaluate both sides of a story for believability.

    • One of the tenets of liberalism is that people who aren’t liberals aren’t capable of running their own lives, therefore it is the duty of liberals to protect these people from themselves.

  8. I’ve read the oped by Rossiter and Michaels and I’d also label it false. For example, they say:
    “Globally averaged thermometers show two periods of warming since 1900: a half-degree from natural causes in the first half of the 20th century, before there was an increase in industrial carbon dioxide that was enough to produce it, and another half-degree in the last quarter of the century.”

    Shameless plug here: you can check the veracity of this statement using my app.

    There are more problems with the article but I’ll just point out two in this paragraph. All the numbers refer to the HadCRUT series, although they’re essentially the same for Cowtan&Way and similar for NOAA.

    First, the numbers for warming in the first half of the XX century are wrong. To calculate warming avoiding the problems of picking a single year (e.g. 1899 may have been much warmer than 1900) I used the difference between the average of 1895-1905 and the average of 1945-1955. I get a warming between these two periods of 0.28ºC, not even close the the 0.5ºC stated by Michaels and Rossiter.

    Second, they state matter-of-factly that this warming happened from “natural sources”. Well, natural sources may have played a role, but greenhouse gas forcing increased quite a bit in that period – by 0.7 w/m2. Actually, the transient sensitivity (TCR) you get using *only* the first half of the XX century is 1.53ºC per doubling of CO2 – not far from the figure that results from the whole observational record.

    Even if one looks exclusively at the period since 1950, the TCR figure is about 1.3ºC per doubling of CO2. If forcing increased by 0.7w/m2 in the first half of the XX century, and the forcing that corresponds to a doubling of CO2 is 3.8w/m2, then the warming that should have been seen in 1900-1950 18.4% of the warming seen in a doubling of CO2. 18.4% of 1.3ºC is 0.24ºC.

    So that’s the math: even if temperatures had increased by 0.5ºC in 1900-1950, you’d expect half of that warming to have happened from greenhouse gas forcing. If by contrast the warming was only 0.28ºC, then the bulk of it can be explained from greenhouse gas forcing. Of course, there may be natural factors in play (which would mean that the real TCR is lower than the one calculated by the app), but the claim of the oped that this warming cannot be explained from carbon dioxide is wrong.

    PS: I haven’t actually read Climate Feedback’s “fact check”. So I don’t know if they adress the above point at all, but the oped is false regardless.

    • If CO2 forcing exists why does Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment fail to show it. Also why does the forcing equation not get mentioned in the specific heat tables for air and CO2?

    • Alberto Zaragoza – Comendador September 25, 2019 at 12:09 pm

      To calculate warming avoiding the problems of picking a single year (e.g. 1899 may have been much warmer than 1900) I used the difference between the average of 1895-1905 and the average of 1945-1955. I get a warming between these two periods of 0.28ºC, not even close the the 0.5ºC stated by Michaels and Rossiter.

      Alberto, instead of using those old temperature records (1895-1955) for your calculating of CO2 causing “global average near-surface atmospheric warming” ……. you could just as easily used the baseball league scores for the same period, which, unlike your temperature data, ….. are 100% accurate.

      “DUH”, up until sometime post-1980, less than 5% of the earth’s surface was being monitored for near-surface temperatures …….. and that amounts to “the little end of nothing” ……. and relegates all of your “fuzzy” temperature calculations to the “trash bin” of good intentions.

    • I’ve always found it fascinating that a small increase in CO2 in the early part of the previous century was able to increase temperatures as much, or even more than the much larger increase in CO2 in the later half of the century did.

      It either means CO2 has little to no impact on temperature or that the ability of CO2 to capture heat has fallen dramatically over the last 100 years.

      • The per doubling aspect of the theory means that earlier additions to the co2 concentration should be more effective, and there should be a dramatic fall off of the effectiveness of later additions to the concentration.

        Either way; little to no effect or the effect diminishing means no cause for alarm. Most of the potential warming from co2 has already happened or it will never happen.

        • By the time you reach 400ppm, CO2 is already capturing about 96% of the IR energy that it is capable of capturing.
          Doubling to 800ppm takes you to about 97.5% of the IR energy that CO2 is capable of capturing.

          • MarkW – September 25, 2019 at 6:48 pm

            By the time you reach 400ppm, CO2 is already capturing about 96% of the IR energy that it is capable of capturing.

            Doubling to 800ppm takes you to about 97.5% of the IR energy that CO2 is capable of capturing.

            Yup, I think you are correct.

            It would be the same as saying, …… a 5 gallon bucket can capture 96% of the rainwater that falls into it, …….. whereas a 55 gallon drum can capture 97.5% of the rainwater that falls into it,

        • KT66 – September 25, 2019 at 5:51 pm

          The per doubling aspect of the theory means that earlier additions to the co2 concentration should be more effective, and there should be a dramatic fall off of the effectiveness of later additions to the concentration.

          Shur nuff, …. KT66, ……. that “per doubling aspect” not only works super good with CO2, …. but it also works super good with NaCl.

          Yup sireee, ….. every time my wifey messes up by putting too much NaCl on my fried eggs, ….. I hafta add more by almost doubling the amount she applied to reduce the “saltiness” to my liking. That works for pepper, also. Just enough is fine, ….. too much makes it taste un-peppered.

    • From a layman’s point of view and wary of the reliability of early temperature records, the linear trends for equal periods are about the same (ignoring the recent El Nino):
      Whatever caused the pre-1945 temperature rise it wasn’t human emissions:

      • “Whatever caused the pre-1945 temperature rise it wasn’t human emissions:”

        You cannot figure that out by looking at an emissions chart. In the previous post I mentioned a forcing increase of 0.7w/m2 between 1895-1905 and 1945-1955. My app uses the numbers from the 2018 paper by Lewis & Curry, who in turn take them from the IPCC’s Assessment Report 5 (Lewis & Curry make some modifications but my understanding is that this relates to recent years or decades, not to the period involved in this case).

        I just checked the Excel file where they store the forcing estimates, which you can find here:

        Between 1895-1905 and 1945-1955, forcing increases by about 0.85w/m2, even more than I stated. My app said 0.7w/m2 because:
        -It weights volcanoes at 50%.
        -It weights black carbon on snow at 300%.
        (I won’t go into details but there are reasons to believe both of these adjustments are valid. Anyway, if you didn’t make them then the early XX century warming would be even less unusual).

        Make those adjustments and indeed the forcing increase goes down to about 0.7w/m2, as previously reported. Out of that, approximately:
        -Nearly 0.2w/m2 comes from volcanic forcing (after downweighting). Volcanic forcing was strongly negative in 1895-1905 but about zero in 1945-1955, hence the increase.
        -0.27w/m2 comes from CO2
        -0.2w/m2 comes from other greenhouse gases, excluding ozone
        -0.08w/m2 comes from ozone.

        There are other forcings but they basically offset each other.

        One can also choose, as a starting point, the 1905-1915 period. This has the advantage that volcanic forcing is not so negative in the initial period; the increase from the starting period to the end period (which again will be 1945-1955) is 0.086w/m2, again after downweighting.

        For these periods I get:
        -Temperature increase: 0.35ºC
        -Forcing increase: 0.31w/m2
        -Implied transient sensitivity: (3.8 / 0.5) * 0.31 = 2.66ºC per doubling of CO2

        This would indeed be an abnormally high figure and suggests that “something else” was causing warming, besides the radiative forcing factors we know about. But remember, even in this case nearly half of the warming could still be explained by known radiative forcing (which in other periods gives a TCR of about 1.3ºC). The “unexplained” part is about 51% of 0.35ºC, which is to say 0.18ºC.

        So the Rossiter-Michaels oped gives readers the impression that 0.5ºC of warming were caused by natural factors in the first half of the XX century. But even if one focuses just on 1910-1950, the warming is only 0.35ºC, and only about 0.18ºC is “unexplained”.

        That may have been warming caused by natural factors, but it’s impossible to know if such natural warming has “remained” until today or if it’s been cancelled out by natural cooling in other periods. The fact that the fast warming period was followed by a couple decades of slight cooling suggests that these ups and downs mostly cancel out.

        (Forcing figures for the early XX century are of course less precise than for today, but the point remains. If Rossiter and Michaels believe these forcing figures are wrong in some manner they should point it out, not wave their hands).

        • You are blinding me with science.
          The US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) chart is either right or wrong.
          I take it you say the chart is wrong.

          • Chris Hanley – September 25, 2019 at 6:39 pm

            Responding to Alberto Zaragoza Comendador commentary:
            You are blinding me with science.

            Employing a wee bit of satire, …… huh?

    • Your statement really goes to the heart of the matter. This is, what is “authoritative”, what is “trustworthy”. You use HadCRUT, and do some very straightforward calculations to show the authors in question are wrong. Your explanation is simple, self-consistent and makes a nice clean presentation. It is based in a critical way on the veracity of HadCRUT and it’s sister temperature series from NASA and NOAA.
      The authors make the claim you dispute that there was a 0.5 degree rise in the first half of the 20th century. Well, was there such a rise, or not.

      Let us go back to the past!
      All the way back to 1976.
      We have two data sources which show the temperature history from 1880 to the present. The first is NAS, the US National Academy of Science, published in PNAS. The second is widely known as Mathews 1976, published a bit later on, very famously, in National Geographic.
      So what do these two temperature histories show?
      1) A fairly dramatic temperature rise from ~1900 to ~1935
      2) A just as dramatic temperature decrease from ~1940 to ~1975
      3) Temperature after the cooling in 1975, were equal to the temperatures around 1900. No net warming over the 20th century up to that point, in these records.

      Modern depictions of the 20th century temperature record do not look anything like this.
      So what happened?
      1) 1982 – James Hansen joins NASA GISS
      2) 1984-1986 – The first differences between the GISS temperature product and the historical record as it was known to be, become apparent.
      3) 1988 – James Hansen becomes director of NASA GISS. From that point on, the 20th century temperature record would undergo numerous, basically nonstop modifications, as the data was processed, adjusted, and corrected.
      By 2005, the classic pattern of the rise and fall of temperatures from 1900 to 1975, was no longer recognizable.
      1) The 0.5 degree rise from ~1900 to ~1935 as reduced by half.
      2) The temperature peak shifted by a decade from ~1935 to ~1945.
      3) The temperature decline from ~1935 to ~1975 has been all but eliminated.
      4) The latter part of the record starts a new warming trend, from a much elevated base.

      These are two starkly different pictures of the 20th century temperature trends. If you were to do the calculations as Alberto Zaragoza Comendador has, on both, you will get starkly different results.
      Which is correct?
      In the case of the current, modern temperature data, you get a nice clean calculation which comports well with theory of carbon dioxide driven Global Warming.
      In the case of the historical understanding of the temperature history, the calculations make no sense at all. Temperatures dropped for four decades as carbon dioxide emissions underwent a huge increase worldwide.

      Other notable events in the history of the temperature records:
      1) HadCRUT adjusts ~1930s to ~1950s temperatures down to partially eliminate “the blip”. “We will still have to explain ‘Why the blip’ ” – Phil Jones. As revealed in the “ClimateGate” emails. After the change, NASA and NOAA follow suit.
      2) Josh Willis fixes the trend in ocean warming data. First, Willis adjusts XBT dropsonde data downward to cool the past. Next, he arbitrarily deletes current Argo buoy data he considers to be too cold, warming the present.
      4) Dr. Tom Karl publishes the “PauseBusters” paper on ocean temperatures. Sea temperatures were raised so that the Pause in the Global Warming record no longer existed. NOAA would later acknowledge that the data modifications did not “meet standards for review”, but would become part of the permanent sea temperature record anyway. Dr. Karl retires shorty after the paper is published.

      So We are back to where we started from.
      Who to believe?
      And of course:

      Is censorship really the way forward for Science?

      • The clincher is, when we look at those graphs from before the era of global warming alarmism as a lucrative industry, they match up perfectly with historical accounts from mariners and researchers and plain old news stories of what was happening with regard to weather.
        But the New and Improved™ graphs that are regularly made even Newer and Improveder™ by constant mysterious adjustments, do not comport in any way with the huge number of very clear historical accounts, records of sea ice and alpine glaciers advancing and retreating, etc…AT ALL!
        Anyone who uses adjustamicated temperature graphs invented by the same people who would otherwise have about zero support for the hypothesis they have staked their entire career and reputation on, is really in need of some lessons in human nature.

    • I used the difference between the average of 1895-1905 and the average of 1945-1955.

      Skipped right over the 1930’s? Most continuous records show 1936 as a peak. “Dust Bowl” days. A lot of Okies moved to California. Raised the average IQ of both states.

      • I assumed a typo, but he repeated himself multiple times.

        How do you get an average of the first half of a century by, oh I dunno… SKIPPING 40 YEARS?!?!?

        Conveniently chosen to get the result he wanted.

    • A few million years ago there was 19 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere (pre ICE/industry), yet the Earth was in the middle of an Ice-Age, explain!

    • You have used the interval literally, however there is a cycle evident in the data.

      Taking centred 11 yr moving averages (so they can be centred conveniently):

      The minimum value of HADCRUT4 is centred on 1908 with -0.46
      The maximum value of HADCRUT4 is centred on 1943 with 0.00

      The warming period is 35 years and the warming in that period is +0.46 degC which is pretty close to half a degree celsius. Those dates are also consistent with 30 year warming rate slope change plots.

      Subtracting the mean RCP8.5 model from HADCRUT4 and taking the averages of the residuals in exactly the same way gives:

      The minimum value of residual centred on 1908 is -0.20
      The maximum value of residual centred on 1941 is +0.08

      So after subtracting the GCM prediction from the observations we STILL have a residual of +0.28 over the 33 year period. This is what the models cannot explain. So 0.28/0.46 – 0.28 = 61% apparently NOT explained by the models. Either way, the model forcing is NOT enough to get close to explaining the observations. So to conclude that the warming in the first half of the C20th is at least predominantly natural is entirely supported by the data and the climate simulations.

      As an aside, on a five year moving average basis the minimum year in HADCRUT4 is 1909 with -0.51 and the maximum is 1943 with +0.03, a difference of +0.54 degC. So with a slight change of criteria you can easily and validly describe a warming of 0.5 degC in the first half of the C20th over a period of around 35 years or so. This is what the models fail on. It is a widely known point that has been made many times.

      Rossiter & Michaels only indicated the enclosing period, not that it was literally a 50 year warming which is what you did with your calculation. The warming is on a cycle, that cycle repeats about 60 or so years later which is why the IPCC can only say that the warming in the latter half of the C20th is at least 50% anthropogenic (despite the fact the models imply > 100% ie the residuals show negative slope in the latter part of the C20th – evidence of overcooking!).

      The IPCC is nothing if not inconsistent, as are people quoting them on occasion.

      The models do not get close to explaining the warming in the early part of the C20th. And the results clearly show this.

    • “So that’s the math: even if temperatures had increased by 0.5ºC in 1900-1950, you’d expect half of that warming to have happened from greenhouse gas forcing.”
      If that is so, why was there 30 years of cooling when CO2 first started to increase rapidly?
      And why has there been a flatlining of temperature for 20 years, when over this same time interval CO2 has increased more rapidly than ever?
      And what caused all of the variations prior to the industrial revolution?
      Why has there been 8000 years of intermittent cooling, with sharply warmer periods in between sharply colder periods?
      No one knows.
      Likewise, anything one says about the “cause” of any amount of warming over the past 140 years is just a pure guess.
      It is apparent to me that whatever is caused these fluctuations, the pattern we have seen rules out CO2 as having much of anything to do with it.
      All the rest of it is just handwavium.

  9. Facebook started out as a social media to connect friends and family. In that, it did a really good job.

    Now they’ve morphed into an arbiter of truth, minding everybody else’s business, corrupting their original inspiration.

    I guess they’ll go the way of so many others who have done the same. History repeats.

    • Exactly what I was thinking, Greg. Facebook was to the 2000s as email was to the 1990s because it greatly enhanced communication among friends and family. But now, as it evolves to remain relevant, it has shed what it was originally designed to do.

      I gave up facebook sometime in 2012 to 2013. I have not regretted doing so. Any time I log back in just to upload a few pictures for family members who insist they come through Facebook, it’s like opening a door to a room of thousands of angry, screaming children.

  10. Did you see where The Daily Wire has moved their site to FB? What is Ben Shapiro thinking? He’s going to have FALSE plastered over every story/article.

  11. Non-partisanship now means agreeing with the left.
    Partisanship is taking any position that a liberal disagrees with.

    • FB and other social media sites are responding to political pressure from Europe, and the veiled threat of fines there.

  12. They were “fact-checked” by the same so called “fact-checker” that “fact-checked” me and my posts on Facebook. What right do they have to say what is or isn’t true?

  13. I hear lots of stories about how major western cities were always smog/fog bound in the first half of the 20th century. I’m no scientist, but wasn’t coal the predominant fuel for heating homes, for trains and for steam powered machines of all kinds during this period? The soot produced could have been enough to cause the temperature rise. The clean air acts in various countries post WWII eventually reversed this effect surely?

        • The effect there would be a slight reduction of albeto. Albeto is the reflection of sunlight back out by light colored surfaces, such as clouds, ice, and snow…..

          I really doubt this is much of a factor in the overall scheme of things, since the amount of ice affected by soot is finite and we are talking about a planetary scale. Just one cloudy day a fresh snow fall probably wipes it out. It’s kind of like methane and NOx, yes they are considered greenhouse gasses, but their amounts in the atmosphere are so tiny that they are essentially non factors.

  14. This looked like a clear cut case of a left-biased factchecking authority screwing up in a left-biased way but being considered by Facebook as correct. Then I saw abortion being mentioned, so I got suspicious and decided to look further. Now I see a battle between two sides that are both overstating their cases, including the National Examiner editorial doing some exaggerating:

    For example, the editorial states “In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed.” It mentions satellites, weather balloons and Christy. I am familiar with that graph by Christy, and it’s about the upper troposphere (using TMT datasets by UAH, RSS and STAR and some radiosonde datasets). over the tropics. The editorial provided a link that I wanted to follow, because I remember that overprediction being by a factor smaller than seven. It turns out, their link results in “404: Page not found” at the AMS.

    Later on the editorial says: “… In two of the four global surface series, data were adjusted in two ways that wiped out the “pause” that had been observed.”

    “The first adjustment changed how the temperature of the ocean surface is calculated, by replacing satellite data with drifting buoys and temperatures in ships’ water intake. The size of the ship determines how deep the intake tube is, and steel ships warm up tremendously under sunny, hot conditions. The buoy temperatures, which are measured by precise electronic thermistors, were adjusted upwards to match the questionable ship data.” However, this is two adjustments, and one of those two was overstated. Elimination of satellite data was done in the change from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv3b, and anyway ERSSTv3 was mostly buoy and ship data with some help from satellites. The change to adjust buoy temperatures from ship data was in the change from ERSSTv3b to ERSSTv4. And, the usual criticism of ship engine room intake temperature data in the criticisms of ERSSTv4 is not from the sun heating ships, but the ships’ engines heating them.

    And as for what the editorial says is the second big adjustment: It is not in two of four similarly major surface datasets. It is in only one dataset, one in a tier down from the top three, Cowtan and Way.

  15. Facebook as a propaganda screening tool . Wow what an app . Shut those conservatives down .
    Whats next mandatory Facebook ?
    A lot of younger people are fed up with Facebook and when they go well conservative voices may be heard again .
    Why is it so offensive for a person to think governments should live within their means and not run up $trillions of debt for younger people to inherit . Deficits are inter generational child abuse .
    Hey, welcome to the world baby . Here is your credit card and you already owe $67,000 .00 .
    Yeah .. call me a conservative for thinking that is child abuse . They had no say and got no benefit .
    What a sick world . We could start by cutting a least half the number of politicians most of which do SFA .

  16. Facebook as a propaganda screening tool . Wow what an app . Shut those conservatives down .
    Whats next mandatory Facebook ?
    A lot of younger people are fed up with Facebook and when they go well conservative voices may be heard again .
    Why is it so offensive for a person to think governments should live within their means and not run up $trillions of debt for younger people to inherit . Deficits are inter generational child abuse .
    Hey, welcome to the world baby . Here is your credit card and you already owe $67,000 .00 .
    Yeah .. call me a conservative for thinking that is child abuse . They had no say and got no benefit .
    What a sick world . We could start by cutting a least half the number of politicians most of which do
    virtually nothing .

Comments are closed.