Denier comment of the day October 10, 2012

A quick one before I go that highlights how deniers are becoming increasingly desperate to avoid what today’s data is showing. This one comes courtesy of Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. He says,

“In today’s post, I’ll review two of the most relevant contemporary publications by the UC Global Research Information Office – a 1991 article by Bradley and Jack Eddy, an older contemporary, and a 1996 article by Tom Crowley, both using variants of the IPCC 1990 graphic.”

Yep, he’s going to discredit 20 year old use of the schematic that has been misrepresented as a graph and altered by every prominent denier since it was produced in order to show the MWP was warmer than today. Well done Steve. Nothing like trying to discredit something that has been superceded by more accurate data. Perhaps you’d like to set out and disprove that the Earth is flat. That’s contemporary isn’t it?

About these ads

3 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments

3 responses to “Denier comment of the day October 10, 2012

  1. I thought you’d gone, Mike. (You probably have now – so I hope all goes well). This cmment may well be deleted from Climate Audit, so I am posting it here too for posterity:

    This is not contemporary, Steve. In terms of our understanding of palaeoclimate, 1991 is ancient history. Why did you waste your time on this?

    Also, does it not strike you as even the tiniest bit ironic for you to describe John Mashey as a conspiracy theorist? What is the continuing disputation of the reality, reliability and reasonableness of the scientific consensus; if it is not conspiracy theory? For people like Professor Richard Lindzen to travel around the World relying on his MIT position and AGU Membership to legitimise his claim that most climate scientists are deluded, stupid, or deceitful… is utterly ridiculous, literally incredible, and probably hypocritical.

    If you really want to tackle something contemporary, please try and falsify the evidence indicating positive feedback mechanisms are now causing observable acceleration in rates of melting Arctic sea ice; mass loss from terrestrial ice; thawing of permafrost; and ocean acidification. BTW, cherry-picking data that shows no such acceleration does not count – you must come up with an alternative explanation for all the data does not involve anthropogenic CO2.

    Since the cyclical activity on the Sun can only help explain the uneven progression of warming – but cannot explain the overall trend over 150 years – I would humbly suggest that you need to stop trying to run down the up escalator.

    • Steve has responded to subsequent comments but mine is still saying “awaiting moderation” – I suspect this means it has either been spammed or is being deliberately ignored. [However, if it had been trashed, am I right to think that even I would no longer be able to see it?]…

      To get through moderation on CA, I think one needs to provide links to peer-reviewed work that refutes the argument being made. In this instance, this would be evidence that the MWP and LIA have not disappeared, were regional events, and/or that it is now warmer… Whilst I am certain such work exists, I suspect that links to them posted on the CA website would be even more short-lived than a Higgs-Boson particle in the Hadron Collider at CERN.

  2. When they say things like “Let me show you what’s wrong with this graph FROM 1990″ I want to say: Do you hear yourself? Honestly. 1990. The FIRST Bush was president (and we thought he was bad . . . ah, had we only known what was to come . . .)

    We’re talking 1990. How long ago was that? Let’s see: Gorbachev killed 130 people putting down a revolt in Baku. That’s right: in 1990 not only did the Soviet Union still exist, not only was Gorbachev still running it, but at that point Gorbachev was STILL AN ASSHOLE. That’s a long freaking time ago.