The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider“. My god, Steven Mosher is easy to spoon-feed! He jumps right in on the blatantly false report by Canada’s National Post denier-in-chief Lawrence Solomon, who claims that climatology professor Mike Hulme has admitted a “phony UN IPCC consensus” “reached by only a few dozen experts“. Of course Solomon has to build his claim with bits of sentences, as the whole sentences are effectively state the opposite.

Solomon has published deliberate lies, explicitly denied by Dr Hulme here and again here. It’s unusual for denialist lies to unravel so quickly, but no doubt most of Anthony Watts readers are clinging to the initial “revelation.”

Mosher’s claim to journalistic integrity takes yet another hit.

NIWA’s Kiwi Kaper

NIWA’s Kiwi Kaper“. Anthony Watts gravely informs us of an uncovered climate conspiracy in New Zealand. But fear not, a “skeptical” (right-wing) New Zealand politician is calling for the replacement the existing New Zealand NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) climate record of a 0.92°C twentieth-century warming trend with something more ‘suitable’. Namely that it should be depicted as “remarkably steady at 12.6°C“.

A former politician named Barry Brill tries to fake it up with a “substantial essay” on a right-wing Australian website called Quadrant Online. Barry is also Chairman of the fraudulent denialist “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition”, caught in 2009 telling flat-out lies about NZ weather records.

The claims are all about “smuggled data” from Dr. Jim Salinger that doesn’t gibe with denialist’s anecdotal recollections, cherry-picked counter-examples and imputed political motivation. Somehow a conspiracy to manipulate climate data was initiated in 1994 in order to support a left-wing political agenda created in 2007.

Here’s the response from the NIWA to the denialist games. The above chart illustrates the dishonesty of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s claim that temperatures have been “remarkably steady“. There’s a “kaper” alright, Anthony. You’re part of it.

Australia dumps Carbon Trading Scheme

Australia dumps Carbon Trading Scheme“. Politicians focussing on short-term political goals in the face of partisan opposition is somehow proof to Anthony Watts that Global Warming isn’t happening. Whatever.

By the way they delayed the carbon trading scheme, they didn’t “dump” it.

Is Fossil Fuel CO2 Different From Volcanic CO2?

Is Fossil Fuel CO2 Different From Volcanic CO2?“. Steven Goddard is wearing his fingers to the bone this week, and must be getting facial spasms from all the sneering. Here he’s trying to pick on a Guardian article, Iceland volcano causes fall in carbon emissions as eruption grounds aircraft, that basically says the CO2 released by the Eyjafjallajokull volcano is less than the decline in CO2 emissions that has resulted from the temporary cessation of transatlantic flights.

This argument about “fossil fuel” vs “volcanic” CO2 is completely in Steven’s mind.

Lindzen: “Earth is never in equilibrium”

"Whenever I see that smiling face, I have to smile myself"

Lindzen: “Earth is never in equilibrium”. Denialist favorite Dr. Richard Lindzen has published an opinion piece in Fredericksburg, Va’s renowned Free Lance-Star and Anthony Watts wants you to know about it! I guess this is a close as it gets to peer-reviewed denialist science.

Here’s some samples of the Professor’s argument.

“we experience temperature changes of tens of degrees in a single day”. We shouldn’t worry about a permanent 2° rise I guess.

“no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years”. I guess Lindzen hasn’t got the bulletin on that boner yet…

“The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear.” and “It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities.” Ah, Gore Derangement Syndrome and conspiracy theories! Always good for a chuckle.

There’s similar misrepresentative bunk scattered throughout. He finishes with a sneer:

Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.

Quote of the week #33: What, no death spiral?

Quote of the week #33: What, no death spiral?” Anthony Watts tries to make hay over the fact that claimed predictions based on the sharp 2007 decline in Arctic ice extent haven’t been met, even though it’s still fairly low. Of course he has to ignore all the explanations that surround the quotes he has plucked in order to do that.

It’s physicist Dr. Joe Romm’s quote, which is actually a post title, from June 5th, 2009 that Anthony’s giggling over when considered in the light of another quote this week in The Sunday Times. I mean, there’s still ice up there!

NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat

Anthony somehow fails to detail Dr. Serreze’s explanation, which I would have thought should support the humor:

I said the north pole [meaning the local vicinity of the physical north pole, not the entire Arctic Ocean as Anthony chose to misrepresent it at the time – Ben] might melt out and I was not alone in making such speculation. It did not melt out and I got some flack for this. So be it. As for the “great recovery” of ice extent in 2008 heard in some circles, it was a  recovery from lowest (2007) to second lowest (2008).

The quote from Dr. Serreze this week that is entertaining Anthony is in a Sunday Times article by the notorious Jonathan Leake:

“In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event”.

But he doesn’t mention Dr. Serreze’s statement that precedes it in the article.

“It has been a crazy winter with Arctic ice cover growing and very cold weather in northern Europe and eastern America all linked to this strongly negative Arctic Oscillation”

Or the article’s second paragraph:

A shift in the chilly winds across the Bering Sea over the past few months has caused thousands of square miles of ocean to freeze.

Perhaps there’s a zinger at the end or the article? Nope:

“On current trends it will still become ice-free in summer by around 2060.”

Anthony might want to wait until the definitive September minimum has been recorded before crowing, although he may be trying to get in there before the record proves him wrong.

I’m glad to hear though that he is now promoting long-term trends as the only relevant climate change evidence. Or is it just momentarily convenient?

UK ads banned for overstating climate change

UK ads banned for overstating climate change“. Anthony Watts quotes discredited journalist Jonathan Leake of The Times: “Ed Miliband’s adverts banned for overstating climate change.” Could it be that the ads “were not supported by science”? Does this mean there is no global warming???

I’m not going to get into the details of these ads, but I will note this post on the subject:

There were four ads complained about and all the complaints came to a total of 10 points of issue. Of those 10 points, one of the points was upheld and was a rebuke in that the ad made claims that should have been ‘phrased more tentatively’. So 9 out of 10 were dismissed.

Anthony must hate it when people look beyond his posts for confirmation.

On the “march of the thermometers”

On the “march of the thermometers”. Missed this one. Anthony Watts pointing to “the hard work of E. M. Smith” on ‘dropped’ weather station records. The accusation is always that stations that are warming faster are being kept, those that are cooling are being maliciously discarded.

Funny, they never seem to mention two things about this:

  1. The ‘dropped’ stations are stations that aren’t automatically uploaded to the weather databases. They are in fact added intermittently by infrequent manual processes. This means that a station will be in the database, seem to be dropped, and then at a later date reappear with all the intervening years of data.
  2. The trends for the “dropped” stations and the “kept” stations are the same. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that “colder” stations are more likely to need intermittent manual incorporation into the data set because they are more likely to be remote.

For more on this foolishness, go over to the “Dropouts” post on Open Mind and give your head a shake.

Swedes call out Jones on data availability

Swedes call out Jones on data availability“. Anthony Watts wants us to think that The Stockholm Initiative is an objective scientific institution commenting honestly, and of course critically, on the Climategate false controversy.

In fact, The Stockholm Initiative is simply a collection of Swedish denialist cranks. They claim “For more than 20 years, a few dozen researchers, but above all, politicians and media, have spread the notion that carbon dioxide emissions will cause a global climate catastrophe.” (Their website was down while writing this, the quote is from Google’s cache.)

Ah, cranks with Photoshop and a poor grasp of English.

Their accusation is that Dr. Phil Jones was lying when he said that Sweden had refused to allow their climate data to be released. According to The Stockholm Initiative, it is actually already in the public domain.

This leads to some interesting questions. If this claim is true, why were the denialists demanding the Swedish data from Dr. Jones? Why did they never contact the original data holders? Why was their Freedom of Information demand necessary?

My answer is that they weren’t really interested in the data, they simply wanted to harass a researcher whose conclusions didn’t suit their agenda.

2010-03-17 Update: There’s a good look at this deception on Stoat. He draws attention to the fact that The Stockholm Initiative’s legal submission about the availability of the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute’s data is false. The data was not publicly available until a few days ago. Sadly, The Stockholm Initiative is out of reach of the British legal system.