Cliff LyonHow Exxon Pays Scientists to Trick You - A Primer for Global Warming Deniers
There seem to be a few folks left on the planet who cannot accept the science of climate change. None of them are scientists except for the ones being paid by Exxon.
I’m thinking OneUtah should build a record of this debate for the benefit of Anthropologists, Sociologists and writers who, fifty years from now, will be trying to better understand the impact and cost of ignorance of a minority within our species and how in the 21st century, the ignorant minority managed to cause an otherwise preventable ecological, economic, environmental disaster.
Evolutionary psychologists call this “strength of conviction.” In some people, strength of conviction is more important than objective empirical evidence.
I hope this helps.
reprinted in its entirety from here:
New GW denialists’ deceptive lie on global temperatures
by BruinKidWed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:11:57 AM PDTThey’re at it again. Over at ICECAP, a site that claims to not be made up of global warming deniers, but turns out to host some of the biggest names in the global warming denial field that get serious $$$ from the oil companies, Joseph D’Aleo (a meteorologist, not climate scientist) put up their latest lie. This graph is the brunt of their argument.
See?? There’s no correlation between temperatures and CO2 output!
Debunk:
First, in climate science, 10 years does not make a trend. You need at least 30 years to establish what the baseline should be. So looking at a graph of only 10 years does little to tell us anything. What was it like before? Well gee, notice this graph starts at a temperature high point of 1998, which was in part due to El Niño that year. How convenient of them to start at the outlier.
So, why not look at the Hadley measurements going back further than 1998? Maybe because when you see a fuller record, it paints a very different picture these deniers don’t want us to see.
Hey, whaddaya know? There seems to be a pretty significant increase in the surface temperature readings since the 1970s!
John Mitchell of the Hadley Centre has more about this myth that global warming stopped in 1998 that deniers like to spout.
1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2°C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and the land air temperatures. It is therefore not surprising that 1998 appears as a warm outlier. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. More recently, 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not boosted by the El Niño conditions that augmented the warmth of 1998.
The fact remains that the rise in underlying surface temperature has averaged in excess of 0.15°C per decade since the mid 1970s. A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1°C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph (above) of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties which are shown as thin black bars. Recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.
Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26°C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 is expected to be 0.41°C above this average, 0.15°C warmer than 1999.
So if you encounter the 1998 myth from someone you know, tell them about El Niño, and then ask them to explain 2005. See, here’s the thing. When you rank the hottest years going back to 1850, the 17 warmest years all happened in the last 20 years.
And what about La Niña?
There are a number of natural factors contributing to so-called interannual variability, the single most important being the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO. The global climate is currently being influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Niña (see Met Office: Expert speaks on La Niña).
The current La Niña began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average.
The La Niña has strengthened further during early 2008 and is now the strongest since 1988/89, significantly contributing to a lower January temperature in 2008 compared to recent years. In addition, global average temperature has been influenced by very cold land temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere and extensive snow cover.
However, once La Niña declines, it is very likely that renewed warming will occur as was the case when the Earth emerged from the strong La Niña events of 1989 and 1999.
So given all this, the graph at the top of this diary D’Aleo talked about is simply completely misleading, as it does NOT take La Niña into account! Presenting a graph of temperatures in 2007 not rising when compared with CO2 output without the caveat about La Niña is pretty intellectually dishonest. (And obviously, La Niña has nothing to do with CO2 output, but certainly has an effect on average global temperatures.) But that’s the graph the global warming denial crowd will seize upon. I’ve already seen it pop up on other message boards, posted triumphantly by ignornant right-wingers who refuse to understand the science behind the data.
In statistics, we call the presence of La Niña a confounding factor. In order to draw any meaningful conclusions, you must account for confounding factors first, otherwise your results are… well… HORSE SHIT. Look at the correlation AFTER adjusting for it. But D’Aleo and the people at ICECAP do not. Even though D’Aleo MENTIONS El Niño and La Niña in his post!
See in the attached pdf though how the temperatures do correspond far better with the ENSO cycles and longer term with PDO which controls the relative frequency of El Nino and La Nina. With an apparent shift on the regime of the PDO to cool and the prospects of solar cycles 24 and 25 being quiet, global cooling is more likely than global warming in the decades ahead.
Now while he is correct to say that the temperatures correspond far better with ENSO (the El Niño Southern Oscillation, for those that missed the term explained above), it is misleading, because he’s comparing it to a correlation that did NOT take into account ENSO in the first place! Why not compare the correlation here, with the correlation of temperature and CO2 after adjusting for ENSO? Perhaps because if the latter has a higher correlation, that would destroy his argument?
And global cooling?? No. Sorry, wrong conclusion. Thanks for playing, though. Even with La Niña cooling things down, 2007 was still one of the 10 hottest years since 1850. What does he think will happen once La Niña goes away? That unlike in 1989, the temperature won’t go back up?? OK, if so, then why? He cannot just state that without something to back up his laughable claim. Sorry Mr. D’Aleo, the trend lines are going up no matter how you spin it.
Folks, we need to be aggressive in countering these lies and deceptions coming from the deniers. The environment should be everyone’s #1 issue, and many people don’t see how closely tied the war in Iraq is with the state of our environment. CO2 emissions? Gee, if we weren’t so dependent on oil that we invaded a Middle Eastern country…………… Do people not understand this connection? And do people not see how throwing billions and billions of dollars down the drain in Iraq over the last couple years has seriously impacted our economy? Do people think these issues are unrelated?
As for the “experts” at ICECAP, notice how names appear in a 2006 diary I wrote showing how “Friends of Science” was really a Big Oil mouthpiece, with those scientists bought and paid for by the oil industry. The big names that appear again are Sallie Baliunas, Bob Carter, Vincent Gray, the Idso family, Pat Michaels (who has since been fired by the University of Virginia for lying about what he did there), Gary Sharp, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and George Taylor. New names (but not new in the GW denier category) include Robert Balling, Reid Bryson (who was responsible for the global cooling stuff in the 1970s that right-wingers mocked scientists for; now he’s on “their” side, so they’re cool with him), Chris De Freitas, William Gray, Tad Murty, and James O’Brien. I’m sure there are other connections to Big Oil with the other people on that list too.
(h/t to Climate Progress for exposing the truth behind the lies)
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Here’s a bio for Stephen McIntyre, Ken’s mathematician buddy who detected the minute and wholly insignificant flaw in the NASA data concerning temperature records for the US for the year 1934:
“McIntyre has worked in hard-rock mineral exploration[2] for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[3] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre#Career
Hmmmm. Guess McIntyre has no reason to dispute the GW theories. DUH!! What puzzles me, on the other hand, is what possible reason Ken Bingham and his friends have for disputing the theory; other than, of course, blind obedience to the same Repugliscum philosophy that brought us such things as Iraq, the current economic woes, religion in politics (gee, so sorry, Mittard), and the ongoing pure, unadulterated, rape of the environment.
Oh, do tell us, Ken,what are your reasons? Record them for posterity!!!
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Since Ken probably won’t weigh in on a post specifically devoted to him, let me be REALLY presumptuous, and tell you what I think his position might be:
I don’t care about all the scientific data, I just can’t trust a guy who wears earth tones and acts snotty in presidential debates.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Great debunking, Albert O!
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Here is some additional debunking:
Ken’s latests source for disputing the notion of human induced global warming (or whether the earth is, indeed, even warming at all) can be found at:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
As pointed out yesterday in commentary to the previous top-post, the talking heads behind Ken’s latest source - Jennifer Marohasy and her Melbourne-based think tank employer the Institute of Public Affairs - are generally considered right-wing agenda driven; thus, their conclusion that global temperatures are cooling or, at worst, plateauing, since 1998 is not surprising.
As stated by Ms. Marohasy in response to the question “is the earth still warming?”:
But here is an interesting twist. After stating unequivocally that temperatures were either cooling or plateauing, notwithstanding increasing greenhouse gas levels during the same period, Marohasy was asked whether the conclusion stated was subject to controversy. Marohasy’s response:
That comment suggests a quick effort at confirmation. Here is what the IPCC has to say about the rising, lowering or plateauing of global temperatures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
To be fair to Ms. Marohasy, she does explain the so-called “head” of the IPCC (who is not identified by name in the webpage) considers the “plateau” in temperatures to be due precisely to the El Nino La Nina features discussed in the top post above. However, she then goes on and states her conclusion as quoted above which is completely at odds with that of the IPCC.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!!! Do you see how this works, Ken Bingham???
One thing is for certain, if Ms. Marohasy ever finds need for employment in the US, she would make a fine spokesperson for the Bush administration, where she can opine to us all on the wonders that have arisen from the ashes of the invasion of Iraq.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Larry,
All of his life, Ken has operated successfully deep inside a world and community that describes for its members how things are and how to think. Success in this world is about obedience to authority.
As Ken has grown, gotten married and had kids, he has joined another derivative authoritative community called right-wing conservatives.
Ken’s insticnt tells him he will have a better chance of success in life if he remains obedient, rather than discovering for himself, how the world really is.
Thats not a bad choice for some.
Its not his fault, its his essence.
And thats why we love the gentle bear.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
The science clearly speaks for itself.
The debate is over on that.
But the “ignorant minority” thing is a very big problem. I know this is off topic, but I don’t think I need to lecture anyone here on the dangers of
a self righteous and condescending majority.
Nor do I need to mention that our laws are in place to always protect the minority, whether ethnic or ideological.
And the idea that “the majority demands compliance”
has to be very, very strictly controlled.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
As does when the MINORITY demands compliance. Your point is?
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I’m impressed by the flurry of stats and graphs. However, for me, the issue is simple. Those who are raising the alarm about climate change are asking societies around the world to do things that we ought to be doing anyway: save energy, conserve forests, pollute less, etc.
While I tend to be skeptical of the idea that the climate is already changing primarily due to atmospheric emissions generated by humans, that’s a theory which deserves to be checked out. Certainly as China and some other countries increase their level of industrial development, it’s something to look out for (imagine if every family in China owned a car!)
If you want to be alarmed about something, consider that very little research is directed at the effects of climate change and how we are going to adapt. To cite an example I’m familiar with, warmer temperatures in British Columbia are now causing unprecedented pine bark beetle infestations. Where the beetles once produced one new generation a year, there are now two. Warmer also means drier weather in some places, leading to an increase in wildfires. Beetle-killed forest stands provide fuel for wildfires. This is one example of the drastic environmental effects that can be triggered by climate change.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Warming has been obvious for the last nigh 14k years. Melted the continental glaciers after all, we are just in the final stages.
Most people can’t decide whether Busch lite or Coors lite is better, they sure can’t believe the specious data.
As the the Sun has reached solar minimum, and sun spot activity has all but ceased, expect the next 3 years or more to be extremely cold. The Sun is the primary driver of climate, gas concentration is secondary. At that the most significant factor in greenhouse warming is water vapor, not CO2.
Either way if the Earth continues to warm as it has for the last 14 thousand years, watch what happens when the methane is released from the defrosting tundras. Methane is by far a more serious greenhouse gas than carbon, as it cannot be remediated. #1 source of man made methane on Earth? Rice production, that’s right the root of the rice plant produces methane during its life cycle. Plant a tree Utah, and then keep watering it, see who parches first.
Climate change is the norm on Earth. Adapt or Die. It’s a law.
So its the coldest winter in 60 years all over the place on Earth. Wait til next year, it will be colder still. Just hope the Sun sparks back up, as before it is over, I am sure that humanity would much rather endure the vagaries of warming, than the cold truth of glaciation. We would not be here as 6 billion without the last 14k years of warming.
Reality is relative, unless you are a dead popsicle.
The flora and fauna will tell the tale, no doubt it is warming, watch where they go, and maybe follow them.
So exxon lies, is that news any more than people here will get up tomorrow and spark their 6 cylinder rigs up and go forth into the world? exxon is you, you are they, unless you walk or ride your bike, and then the food you eat all has an oil(carbon) component, from fertilizer, to cultivation, to transport, to storage.(which is borne by electricity produced from coal burning).
All will unfold as it should, the gnashing of teeth will not mitigate, only putting out the flames of your own civilisation as it stands will…and that will likely not even put a dent in the changes. Oh man, can you see your limit?
What are you to do there in the desert, if I were you, the plans to move north, for more than climate reasons also, should be well at hand.
Join CASCADIA.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Morrocco,
I know they can be annoying, but think long and hard before you’re ready to control the defensive actions of minorities.
It’s the emotional aspect of the condescension and self righteousnous of the majority that makes it important to keep a cool head before hauling off and punishing people for their minority views.
Lest you one day find yourself part of an unpopular ideology.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Ethan:
Of course, you’re right, however sometimes I think Ken is pulling our leg just to be mean.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:11 am
Ethan, I hear and accept your premise here, but I think you’re using the classic ruse employed by the media; “balance” or “respect for minority views.”
Norman Lear spoke about this issue yesterday (C-Span) as have many others.
It is true, that sometimes the minority (GW deniers) are simply wrong and should not be given “equal” time. We can think of many such examples in American history, civil rights being an obvious one (gay rights, Choice, habeas, voting rights, gun control etc.).
Taken more fully, I think your argument is one that was fully explored in the Federalists papers; tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
What we learn from their debate, is that the issue is more complicated than just “respect’ for one anothers’ views. One must also consider, self-interest vs individual rights and harm.
For example, you wouldn’t try to argue that we should have given more consideration to the segregationists in the fifties regardless of whether they were the majority or the minority. In this instance because the interest of a class of people cannot be used to subvert the rights and liberties of the individual.
You see, in real life, real life matters. The common good should not be subverted by courtesy.
The right-wing likes to spew shit and then remind us that they have a right to an opinion. This is the kind of syllogism Tight-Dwight uses mercilessly.
Truth is, everyone has a right to their opinion, but no one has the right to be heard. In the real world, you must earn (or buy, as Exxon has done) that privilege .
March 24th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Having all the money does not make a minority right
Being backed into a corner or egging the majority into irresponsible complicity with a malicious undertaking because of greed or a foolish inbred meanness does not make a posture rational.
While each of us has the capacity to be as mean as any other, many are able to choose to direct our energies in other, more ‘humane’ efforts, one of which is eternally attempting to peaceably massage those unable to control thier mean-streak, before they give ‘us’ a bad name or simply wreck the place.
That is one of our duties, it is always to be accomplished thoughtfully, morally and with the intent of having the bad guy come around, but it doesn’t always work out that way. Corrective efforts, of the ‘humane’ sort should be made, expanded til fruition AND reported / supported . If only…
We may not have an argument.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Cav,
What is meaning of “morocco banana”?
March 24th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Silly me, it’s a play on Barak Hussien Obama w / Hussien v caveat as a sort of central feature. Don’t all ‘good dems’ need a muslim middle name, I mean where have you been? Or are you Cliff Rodham Lyons? We’re REALLY off topic now!
March 24th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I like Usama bin Lyon.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:43 am
bin Lyin’ is the operative phrase. Freudian slip Cliff?
“The common good should not be subverted”. How subjective a statement is that? It might be the opinion of the world that the “American way”, as it is today, needs to see its demise. You can look at bush as its champion, cutting the requisite social services etc. as we engage in a fight to the death with the “evil doers”.
bush is whistling a happy tune these days. Ever consider that his machinations have destroyed the very banking houses that we owe, and that inherently own the fed, from whom we “buy” borrow, money? We will survive the fallout, but lots of parasites from London, Europe, and elements of elites that call only money their home, are now left holding the bag. Bank of England, Warburg, Deutsche bank, etc. are taking it the shorts. We are never going to pay them back their value. We are going to just fill their pockets with worthless chump change. Just a thought. Their wealth is currently aflame, and bush says “lemme hep” printing even more money to add to their worthless direction of their assets.
Sure we’ll have a depression, but these ticks are about to fall off the American body politic.
bush cowboyed them, what a ringer, and they think he’s an idiot. It is truly ironic. Meanwhile prepare for massive economic dislocation, check your neighbors, they will be your “backstop”.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Cliff, I like that too…and sorry about the added ’s’. I just knew somehow you weren’t Cliff W. Lyon.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Brrrrrr. I wonder if Ken’s friend Marohasy has a convenient explanation for this, too:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/25/antartica.collapse.ap/index.html