“Northeast US blizzard proves global warming, or something“. Ryan Maue is puzzled. All weather is proof that there is no Global Warming. How could the media get it so wrong and say that snowfall is evidence for Global Warming?
Maybe because increased precipitation, in this case in the form of snow, is an expected consequence of Global Warming?
But please, whining about media reports is irrelevant to the scientific debate over Global Warming. Oh, that’s all you’ve got? Well, work it then.
“New Hampshire to Consider Withdrawing from RGGI“. Will New Hampshire withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an inter-state power plant CO2 emissions cap-and-trade agreement? Who knows? Ric Werme admits he doesn’t. But it’s fun to talk as if it might happen, because you can pretend that there is an anti-Climate Change mood in the air.
There’s an entertaining “Live Free or Die” libertarian theme in the comments.
“Things we don’t know – about climate“. More Christmas Guest pudding. 3,000 words by Paul Murphy. Short version: Paul doesn’t know anything about climate, or even science really, and he likes to watch movies on TV.
“First white Christmas in Atlanta since 1882, NCDC gets new snow record in their own backyard“. It snowed somewhere, thus disproving Global Warming.
“A CARB Christmas“. Anthony Watts makes fun of a government agency, the California Air Resources Board, by mocking a proposal (outlaw dark-colored cars to cut air conditioning usage) that was never implemented and a fuel efficiency proposal (60 mpg) that also hasn’t been implemented.
So because something is hard it shouldn’t be tried? Sounds exactly like the resistance to reducing Global Warming. Space flight is kinda tough too.
“CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata“. More Christmas Guest pudding! Geologist David Middleton takes on the “Warmista Junk Science”. I think he was a classmate. [Update: No, thank god] How depressing to see him parroting the decrepit “Hockey Stick” aspersions and casting about for excuses to prefer weaker data that ‘suggests’ results that suit his purpose.
Ironically David reflexively deplores “Mike’s Nature Trick“, which boils down to plotting temperature proxies over just the period for which they can be demonstrated to be reliable, but mimics it in his arguments. He tries to deprecate the widely accepted ice core data by combining sparse, erratic, leaf stomata temperature proxies and the insensitive (10 million year increments!) GEOCARB III geochemical model of Phanerozoic atmospheric CO2. This apparently requires lots of very busy charts to give the impression of analysis, but lets him simultaneously claim that ice cores don’t capture the variability the way the stomata proxies allegedly do and that the ice core CO2 is too low in CO2 when compared to the monotonic GEOCARB III data. Nice “trick”.
After all those charts, what is David’s compelling “analysis”? Wishful eyeballing.
In his conclusions David repeats the debunked denialist claim that the “carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle” and that “anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.” Yeah, the carbon cycle lag was true over geological time when organic productivity was linked to natural climate variation. The problem now is that carbon release by man has turned the feedback response into the driver and is proceeding at a rate that is an order of magnitude faster. Claiming that the anthropogenic contribution is minimal is just a baseless assertion. Plugging your ears and singing “lalalalalala” isn’t going to change these things.
This is just another case of a denialist who can’t find a successful argument resorting to fabricating one, and David has embraced as many old denialist themes as he can. Naturally he’s greeted by the usual thoughtful exclamations of his Copernican brilliance in the comments that will one day be embarrassing to read. I suppose that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, but why do so many of Anthony’s readers feel compelled to praise such pedestrian efforts? It seems like a hollow attempt at self-reassurance.
What argument could David have made about ice core data without exposing his bias? That they are not sensitive to short-term CO2 variations. Unfortunately this would lead to a new question: so what?
“Do We Care if 2010 is the Warmist Year in History?“. The new denialist talking point emerges! Who cares if 2010 was the warmest year ever? Ira Glickstein says (well, suggests) that it’s all because of lying corrupt climatologists making malicious adjustments anyway!
Keep talking about that, but remember to add a caveat like:
“What does this all mean? Is this evidence of wrongdoing? Incompetence? Not necessarily.”
A few years ago there was debate about whether 1998 or 1934 was the hottest year ever, but the climatologists made 1998 the hottest year with their evil adjustments! They’re probably doing it again.
Next problem.
“T. Boone Pickens Abandons U.S. wind power“. T. Boone Pickens’ changing business interests apparently proves that Global Warming isn’t happening and that no-one should invest in “green” initiatives. Pasting in a Slashdot story stub proves it.
Hmm. The Slashdot comments suggest that he was angling for big government handouts and had an ulterior motive of wanting control of access corridors for pipelines.
” Snowmageddon II: Monster blizzard to bomb New England?“. Snow! Somewhere! Proves that Global Warming isn’t happening! Don’t ask how! Ignore those satellites and weather stations!
“Lump of coal award: to IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth for hiding the decline (or the lack of increase) in global temperatures“. Alec Rawls awards Kevin Trenberth a lump of coal for not picking his words perfectly in a causal e-mail that was later stolen. Fair enough, right?
Alec will have to answer to Santa directly for his deliberate new misrepresentation of Trenberth’s remarks.
Wott's Up With That? 