i-97f99afbf8478a8de4d43962ca95bdbe-Blunder-cover-medium.jpg Deltoid can reveal that Roy Spencer has blundered by using a fake photo of an iceberg to help make his case that there is a massive conspiracy among climate scientists to conceal the truth about global warming. Enmeshed in Spencer’s Photoshopgate scandal are Marc Morano, who prominently features Spencer’s fake photo and Rush Limbaugh, who said “The cover of this book is just superb.”

Of course, some of you may be thinking that the picture is just an illustration and it doesn’t matter one bit to Spencer’s thesis whether it is a photoshop or not and journalists would not take such a thing seriously. And you’d be right. Journalists only take this stuff seriously when the other side uses a photoshopped picture.

Similarly: an obscure error in IPCC report is a huge story, while fabrication by a journalist claiming an error in the IPCC report is not a story.

Comments

  1. #1 Arthur Smith
    May 10, 2010

    Except Spencer trimmed the top part of the iceberg even more than the original photoshopped image! My best estimate is that Spencer’s iceberg has just 0.5% of its mass above the surface, not the usual 10+%. That’s some pretty dense ice there. Or something is dense.

    And somebody added whales.

  2. #2 Mike
    May 10, 2010

    I don’t expect this will make any difference whatsoever to the rave reviews Spencer’s book is about to receive from the choir for whom it confirms what they want to believe.

  3. #3 V. infernalis
    May 10, 2010

    Don’t forget the uproar over the cover on Al Gore’s book.

  4. #4 J Bowers
    May 10, 2010

    Is that how Greenland will look in 200 years?

  5. #5 Miguelito
    May 10, 2010

    Why does this matter? Seriously.

    Does Spencer claim that the image is real anywhere?

    I don’t support Spencer’s denial of AGW. I’m with the AGW crowd in that the science behind AGW is solid and that we’re looking at a substantial temperature increase over the next century in the business-as-usual case.

    But attacking Spencer over this is just petty. It’s just a great illustration whether there’s a crappy book behind it or not.

  6. #6 J Bowers
    May 10, 2010

    @ 5 Miguelito

    It’s humour. Follow the links in the article ;)

  7. #7 JamesA
    May 10, 2010

    The title implies that Spencer is still pushing the line that the rest of all the Climate Scientists are simply misguided and naive. This, no doubt, will be a lot more palatable to the many deniers out there who wouldn’t like to think of themselves as conspiracy theorists. The fact that Spencer is pitching this thesis to the general public rather than his peers should really set all of the kook science alarm bells ringing loud and clear, but we all know that they are long since deaf to them.

  8. #8 James Haughton
    May 10, 2010

    Putting a quote from Rush Limbaugh on the cover of an alleged science book is a bit of a giveaway, too…

  9. #9 MarcH
    May 10, 2010

    No where near as amusing as a letter published in Science by 255 scientists bemoaning the lack of honesty in the current debate that was accompanied by… a dishonest photo. Oh the irony!

    As Randy Olsen states in his blog: It’s really pretty staggering. And YES, it does matter. THIS is much of what my book was about. It matters if your hair is a mess when you give a talk. It matters if you rip a giant fart in the middle of making the most important point in your talk. And yes, it matters if you publish a letter of outrage, complaining about being smeared as dishonest, and yet your article is accompanied by a photograph that is tainted by the word “Photoshop” which virtually EVERYONE in today’s society knows symbolizes one big thing — WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.

    http://thebenshi.com/2010/05/10/37-photoshopped-polar-bear-is-the-climate-science-community-really-really-really-this-clueless-yes/

  10. #10 bioephemera
    May 10, 2010

    Great post. :) I don’t want to scare anyone, but that iceberg looks ever so slightly like. . . the face on Mars.

    Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

  11. #11 Former Skeptic
    May 10, 2010

    @10:

    Nope – It’s an abstract picture of Spencer’s alter ego…FLUKEMAN!

    [cue X-files music]

  12. #12 Mark Shapiro
    May 10, 2010

    Don’t worry too much, MarcH, the photo accompanying the letter has been replaced with a stock photo and a note of correction.

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    May 10, 2010

    Shorter MarcH – I can’t see the forest for the trees.

    Longer MarcH – I don’t understand the concept of illustration of generic concepts as opposed to representation of a specific time & place.

  14. #14 afeman
    May 10, 2010

    Don’t miss the Revkin link. I feel safe in disregarding him now.

  15. #15 Mike
    May 10, 2010

    ….tainted by the word “Photoshop” which virtually EVERYONE in today’s society knows symbolizes one big thing — WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.

    Oh bugger. Now I’m going to have to delete Photoshop from my computer. Because I do care about the truth, and I was totally unaware that photographs edited in Photoshop only symbolised lies and deception.

    And it was darn expensive too. Any suggestions, Marc H, as to goodly heroic truth-seeking replacement photo-editing software?

  16. #16 Agnostic
    May 10, 2010

    It’s a great picture though obviously as wrong as Spencer. 13% of icebergs are above water – but not this one.

    The science of greenhouse gases and their effect on global warming is settled and has long ceased to be a matter for debate or contention. What should concern Spencer is that the consequences of continued global warming include the following:

    • continued, faster melting of the polar ice caps and sea-ice
    • dangerous sea level rise causing coastal flooding
    • melting of land based snow and ice, contributing to
    • shortage of water in densely populated and cultivated areas
    • loss of capacity to produce food for rapidly growing populations
    • extinction of flora and fauna dependent on cooler climates
    • increased risk of fire and flood destroying valuable assets
    • spread of potentially fatal diseases into areas now free of them
    • ocean acidification endangering marine life forms
    • increased incidence and severity of climate events
    • increased water vapor in the stratosphere causing further warming
    • melting permafrost releasing methane, making global warming faster.

    Some people, like me, might feel that extolling the virtues of increasing CO2 emissions because it increases vegetation is misplaced, given the points made above and the fact that rapacious homo sapiens is so avidly engaged in cutting down trees.

    The other point made is the unfairness with which those who indulge in science fiction and treated compared with those who indulge in science facts. Well, yes. So true! It seems likely to remain that way for as long as people shrink away from the fact that human activity could possibly be responsible for global warming, or its consequences, or the need to change our life-style to reduce CO2 emissions.

    In fairness though it should be recognized that most people, at least in Australia, do recognize this need and know that the longer they put off action, the more severe will be the change in their lifestyles.

  17. #17 Timothy Chase
    May 10, 2010

    … so the original photo itself was a photoshop — but was intended to look like what (according to the photographer, Ralph A. Clevenger) we would be able to see if water didn’t get in the way of our ability to see it. I presume by this Clevenger meant the refractive properties of the ocean water — as well as the fact that it should be rather cloudy where the temperature and consequent capacity to hold carbon dioxide would promote the growth of algae.

    Clevenger’s photo aims at a realism that is more or less impossible in reality — given the properties of sea water — that nevertheless properly presents the relative proportions of the ice that is above the surface and below the surface for a typical iceberg, with 10% of its volume above water and 90% below. But comparing Spencer’s version against that of the original composite we can see that it is Spencer’s version which is severely distorted — with less than 0.01% of the iceberg’s volume above water — in order to make visual the claim that scientists have mistaken appearances for reality.

    As such Spencer is severely distorting reality in order to create an appearance that he hopes his readers will mistake for reality — including the fiction that the views of mainstream science regarding global warming and the physics that underlies it is simply a huge mistake.

  18. #18 Charles
    May 10, 2010

    Well, I don’t care so much about the cover, except to say that it might be representative of the erroneous pictures created in the book. I found six errors on the first page alone–incorrect claims he makes about the IPCC’s reports. Page three contains three graphs of “averaged” non-tree-ring proxies of temperature anomolies; they are un-attributed and look rather suspect.

    The book is published by that reputable publisher, “Encounter Books.” But checking the sales ranking shows that it is selling. Gulp.

  19. #19 Arthur Smith
    May 10, 2010

    I’ve wondered about those book sales figures for books written by “skeptics”. Putting a book out is a rather neat indirect way to get “funding” for your work – a fossil fuel company can “sponsor”, say, a thousand copies that they then send out to congressional staff or whatever, and they get a double whammy: propaganda for lobbying, and support for the local denialist. Wasn’t there a congressional scandal involving this sort of indirect payment via book purchases? How can that sort of thing not be still going on? Does anybody ever investigate these days?

  20. #20 Connor
    May 10, 2010

    Photoshop-gate!

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    May 10, 2010

    The image is a propaganda tool, pure and simple.

    It is intended to convey a profound (and wildly erroneous) impression about the ‘serious error’ of scientists in estimating the degree of human-induced warming, before the impressions are reinforced by a reading of the book, or in case there is no subsequent reading of the book.

    The addition of the whales is intended to convey another false impression that all is well in the Arctic regions of the planet, and quite probably that whales themselves are not at risk from human activity.

    It might be good marketing, but it is pernicious and egregious misrepresentation of science, and this makes if no different from lying.

    I wonder if Spencer or his publishers sought permission to use and to modify the image in this manner. In particular I wonder too if Ralph Clevenger has any qualms about his work to accurately portray the mass of an iceberg being distorted, in order to distort science.

  22. #22 Shub Niggurath
    May 10, 2010

    Andy Revkin has a picture of a melting earth held in the palm of a hand. What a ‘blunder’ that is, eh?

  23. #23 John
    May 10, 2010

    I am outraged, and I am contacting all the talkback stations to voice my displeasure. Once I’ve done that I’m going to log into Bishop Hill whereupon I will write parody limericks to express my anger.

  24. #24 Lotharsson
    May 11, 2010

    > Putting a book out is a rather neat indirect way to get “funding” for your work – a fossil fuel company can “sponsor”, say, a thousand copies that they then send out to congressional staff or whatever, and they get a double whammy: propaganda for lobbying, and support for the local denialist.

    **IIRC** a lot of right wing authors in the US are basically subsidised in similar ways. They may have lots of sales on paper, but many of them are bulk buys by ideologically motivated individuals/institutions, and a lot of the books end up in landfill – or on sale for only a couple of bucks a couple of months after the initial launch. I can’t remember if the official sales figures (which can help drive media exposure) exclude the bulk buys that may not end up in actual readers, but I don’t think they do.

  25. #25 jyyh
    May 11, 2010

    hey… icebergs are 3D, the image is not. it’s in 2D. as in flat. i mean, is this lateral thinking or not?

  26. #26 Lars Karlsson
    May 11, 2010

    I think that MarcH@9 and Randy Olson has a point. While the fact that the polarbear photo was Photoshopped would be irrelevant to anybody conerned with reality and truth, that is not how the media (or much of the blogospher) work. The media are not so much concerned about whether a news story is true or important, but whether it is a “good story”. Hence “Climategate”, and hence the many other “…gates” (will this be “Photoshopgate”?). Not much of substance, but “good stories”.

  27. #27 Martin Vermeer
    May 11, 2010

    Mike #15, try the GIMP. Free as in speech and in beer, and you couldn’t cheat with it if your life depended on it ;-)

  28. #28 Lars Karlsson
    May 11, 2010

    I should add: to understand even the basics of climate science and its political, economical and ecological implications require a significant intellectual effort. Understanding “letter by scientists had a photoshopped picture” does not. That’s another reason why the latter is more “newsworthy”.

  29. #29 duckster
    May 11, 2010

    @ Timothy #17

    As such Spencer is severely distorting reality in order to create an appearance that he hopes his readers will mistake for reality — including the fiction that the views of mainstream science regarding global warming and the physics that underlies it is simply a huge mistake.

    So what you are arguing here, as I see it, is that the photo is in fact the PERFECT cover for the book?? It’s an own goal. We should be celebrating! I mean, once the truth gets out…

    (sigh)

  30. #30 Paul UK
    May 11, 2010

    >And somebody added whales.

    Is there a bigger version of the image? they look like sea gulls to me!

    Obviously they have adapted to the water world and are now able to swim for long periods under water.

    BTW, the image seems a bit devoid of any other ice. So I’m not sure really what the image is supposed to convey??
    Is there some secret visual language going on here?

    The ice under the water is supposed to represent mother natures secret??

    But the ocean devoid of ice suggests secretly Spencer believes AGW is correct??

    Actually the Aussie and UK cover are different:
    http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/445947/Roy-W.-Spencer/The-Great-Global-Warming-Blunder/

  31. #31 lord_sidcup
    May 11, 2010

    Sorry to be off-topic, but it looks like Mike Hulme has linked up with others, including some linked to Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, to try to blame global warming on poor countries with their indoor fires and their habit of cutting down trees (I’m simplifying, a little).

    [After the crash - a new direction for climate](policyhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8673828.stm)

    [Academics urge radical new approach to climate](changehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10106362.stm)

    Might be worth posting responses to Mike Hulme’s article.

  32. #32 Harols Pierce Jr
    May 11, 2010

    The blue image looks a sea turtle with plastic bag dangling from its right side. The blue image can’t be part of the iceberg because it is not white and opaque like the tip.

    If you closely at the bottom left of center you can see what looks like a closed fist with an extended middle finger. However, I can’t imagine Roy putting such a lewd gesture on the cover of his book. OTOH, maybe he doesn’t know. It is not unusual for a graphic artist to sneak all sorts of interesting and suggestive things in an image.

    Maybe he put the blue image there so that his enemies will waste a lots of time trying to figure out if it has hidden messages or other esoteric images from ancient cultures.

    If any of you have the book, try viewing the cover thru variou colored filters or under black light. There is something about the cover that ain’t right.

  33. #33 lord_sidcup
    May 11, 2010

    Sorry, messed up my links

    [After the crash - a new direction for climate policy](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8673828.stm)

    [Academics urge radical new approach to climate change](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10106362.stm)

  34. #34 Dunc
    May 11, 2010

    Funny thing is, it just makes me think of how much of the climate system’s total heat content is in the ocean rather than the atmosphere… I suspect that wasn’t the intended effect.

  35. #35 el Gordo
    May 11, 2010

    ‘Third is a resilience goal; to ensure that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause.’

    Very good start and no objectors.

  36. #36 Anthony David
    May 11, 2010

    I was going to bet Roy was going to be the first to throw in the towel, given the latest UAH figures. I guess there is too much money in his current activity. He should make a killing with his book signing slot at the next Heartland Conference.

  37. #37 Nils
    May 11, 2010

    Crazy topic, and thanks to Tim for posting this. When Al Gore or Science use a photoshopped image, the oh-so-critical webcrowd cries foul. But when Spencer relies on it, no problem at all. Also: I looked closely at the cover of Roger Pielke’s upcoming book, showing a small globe at the bottom. Guess what? It ain’t the real planet Earth. Fudging the facts, or what?

  38. #38 jakerman
    May 11, 2010

    [MarcH](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/roy_spencers_great_photoshop_b.php#comment-2504105) and [Shub](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/roy_spencers_great_photoshop_b.php#comment-2504490), do you hear a whooshing sound yet?

    Listen carefully, focus either just above your head or between your ears. You might pickup up.

    And that’s actually [two strikes for Shub](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac.php#comment-2499788).

  39. #39 Moopheus
    May 11, 2010

    I don’t know much about his publisher, but typically the author has little or no say in what goes on the cover. And actually, as a book cover, it’s pretty good. A book cover is supposed to get you to look at the book, pick it up and look at it in the bookstore. In two seconds. So it’s got to be blunt, direct, exaggerated. The fact that it’s selling tripe doesn’t mean the designer shouldn’t do their job.

  40. #40 bluegrue
    May 11, 2010

    [Charles #18](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/roy_spencers_great_photoshop_b.php#comment-2504393)
    You are right in pointing out the actual errors. Here’s more info on Spencer’s figure 1.

    Amazon has an extensive excerpt (link see below). In the text fig. 1 is sourced to – wait for it – Loehle, E&E 18(2007), pp. 1049-1058 ([see McCulloch's site](http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/)). Yay for “peer-reviewed” literature. And no, it’s not actually Loehle 2007 (which would include all its errors), but the data from Loehle and McCulloch, E&E 2008. What’s more, the E&E 2008 data ends in 1935, but the data in the plot goes almost up to 2000. If you take a 30-year sliding mean of the HadCRUT3 data (the Loehle data uses this filter), which is plotted in the other panels for modern times, and shift it by 0.3°C you get an excellent fit.

    Here is an overlay of Spencer’s fig. 1 and the data sets mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
    < http://i42.tinypic.com/9u4qza.png>

    So the original data is sourced to the wrong reference and it looks like HadCRUT3 data has been grafted onto the end without any mention at all.

    The other data sets are here
    <
    http://www.ncasi.org/programs/areas/climate/LoehleE&E2007.csv>
    <
    http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/LoehleMcC.txt>
    <
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt>

    Spencer’s fig. 1 is available at Amazon (page 3)
    <
    http://www.amazon.com/reader/1594033730>
    as part of an extensive excerpt, covering the _Introduction & Backgroud_ (pp. vii-xxvii), a few pages of chapter 1 (pp. 1-6), _Summary & Conclusions_ (pp.153-162) and the footnotes (pp. 163-171). If anyone wants to go and look for more errors, good hunting.

  41. #41 Timothy Chase
    May 11, 2010

    duckster wrote:

    So what you are arguing here, as I see it, is that the photo is in fact the PERFECT cover for the book??

    In the same sense that “Climategate” was “the perfect name” for a breakin to illegally obtain information to be used as part of a smear campaign. The parallels are quite strong, but unfortunately no one seemed to see them and how they could be used to highlight the actual essence of what took place until it was largely too late.

    duckster wrote:

    It’s an own goal. We should be celebrating! I mean, once the truth gets out…

    Actually I think the case for “Climategate” being an “own goal” was stronger. Unfortunately while this spin that I suggested above was true it didn’t really get pointed out by very many people until the Climategate smear campaign had largely done its work. And at this point, with today’s hyperkinetic news cycle, the conversation has moved on.

    Spin can frame an event — determine the context through which people identify what they regard as essential. Fortunately, while the spin used by the “skeptics” largely won in the case of Climategate, it got amateurishly repeated with the various other gates that rapidly followed and became far less effective.

  42. #42 Dr. Schweinsgruber
    May 11, 2010

    Roy Spencer also believes in intelligent design:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

    FoGT are presently preparing a special on creationism in Huntsville called ‘Heaven of Huntsville’. Out in a few days.

    http://friendsofginandtonic.org/

  43. #43 Steven Sullivan
    May 11, 2010

    #31
    You simplified *a lot*, to the point of outright misrepresentation. According to those articles Hulme et al certainly do not ‘try to blame global warming on poor countries’. Given the impasses on CO2 regulation — which they support btw — they seek to move forward on what many think is the *second* biggest human contributor to global warming after CO2: black carbon, meanwhile calling for a carbon tax and provisions of low-carbon energy to developing countries. Basically attempting to address a more tractable problem while we seek workable approaches for a harder one. Argue the merits (or even premises) of that approach, not something the authors never said.

  44. #44 caerbannog
    May 11, 2010

    @42

    Regarding science and Alabamans…

    Here’s a political campaign ad that’s currently running in Alabama. In terms of sheer entertainment value, it’s the next-best thing to a train wreck.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJG-7s1e5eM&feature=player_embedded

  45. #45 Sigurdur
    May 11, 2010

    Good Evening.
    The picture on this book is called the Iceburg Effect. It has been used as a teaching tool for over 20 years.
    The iceburg effect has to do with quality control, or lack of it.
    Education is quit useful isn’t it?

  46. #46 Russell
    May 11, 2010

    Egads!

    Have benthic bacteria been gnawing on Roy’s iceburger ?

    Some dread strain of Bombastogster oxycontinans cultured from Rush’s microphone, perhaps-

    http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/11/rush-to-judgeme.html

  47. #47 Timothy Chase
    May 11, 2010

    Sigurdur wrote:

    Good Evening. The picture on this book is called the Iceburg Effect. It has been used as a teaching tool for over 20 years. The iceburg effect has to do with quality control, or lack of it. Education is quit useful isn’t it?

    I personally have found that context is often quite useful.

    It has already been established that the above picture is a severely distorted version of a photoshop.

    The first sentence of the post:

    Deltoid can reveal that Roy Spencer has blundered by using a fake photo of an iceberg to help make his case that there is a massive conspiracy among climate scientists to conceal the truth about global warming.

    … contains a link to the “original”:

    This image was produced in 1999 by Ralph A Clevenger, a professional nature and underwater photographer…

    http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/iceberg.asp

    … that in turn is a digital composite. The photoshop is from 1999. There is an “iceberg effect” principle which has been around for a while, but it has not been using that particular image for “over 20 years.”

  48. #48 MarkB
    May 12, 2010

    Revkin’s excuse:

    “| Updated And of course everybody Photoshops, even climate skeptics, so what’s the big deal if a serious science journal does it?]”

    So one could interpret Revkin’s statement as saying that failing to scrutinize Roy Spencer in this ticky-tack manner is not a big deal because, like all skeptics, he’s not a serious scientist. Yet Revkin repeatedly treats skeptic commentary as serious material, so this is more of a cop-out excuse for his double-standard reporting. Revkin attempts to establish the narrative that climate science is losing credibility and it’s the fault of the scientists. On the contrary, it’s focusing on ticky-tack fouls and failure to effectively vet and scrutinize skeptic claims that allows such dubious assertions to fester. In that sense, Revkin is part of the problem.

  49. #49 jakerman
    May 12, 2010

    Thanks for [the exerpt](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/roy_spencers_great_photoshop_b.php#comment-2505488) Bluegrue.

    Shorter Roy Spencer:

    >If cloud feedbacks are actually forcing then climate sensitivity to CO2 is low. (In fact if all feedbacks are forcing, then my sister might be my brother).

    >CO2 is a forcing, but the PDO is the real trigger driving climate change, just like the PDO drove similar temperature fluctionations every 30 to 70 years. It’s must be a fluke that were now a highest temperatures on record.

    And

    >Computer models good for me, but are bad when climate modolers use them.

    And

    >Climate science has been politicised except by Rush Limbaugh who supports me and is quoted on my front cover.

  50. #50 Timothy Chase
    May 12, 2010

    MarkB wrote:

    Revkin attempts to establish the narrative that climate science is losing credibility and it’s the fault of the scientists. On the contrary, it’s focusing on ticky-tack fouls and failure to effectively vet and scrutinize skeptic claims that allows such dubious assertions to fester. In that sense, Revkin is part of the problem.

    Someone recently pointed out (in an email I believe) that while the media has been very interested in the Climategate story as the “skeptics” tell it, virtually no one in the media has been interested in digging into the break-in that was used to start the Climategate smear campaign. Who broke in and why? Their attitude has been essentially “who cares?”

    There is also a cartoon someone pointed out a few months ago showing some fellow on a street corner seeking attention by yelling that the world is going to end in one frame — and no one pays him attention, yelling that the moon landing was a hoax in another frame — and no one pays him attention…, but in the final frame he yells that global warming is a fraud — and reporters suddenly show up with microphones and cameras. He has become a celebrity.

    Too bad I can’t find that cartoon.

  51. #51 Tony Sidaway
    May 12, 2010

    Even this thread is an act of capitulation to the obsession with image and spin. Concentrate on the science, ignore the disinformation campaigns because they are intended to take up time and attention, not to make a serious point. Don’t let those who do not have science on their side make the running. Emphasize the science, and when you’ve done that, do it some more. And the next day, do it again.

  52. #52 Russell
    May 12, 2010

    Rush owes Roy more than a jacket blurb-
    this from 2007
    TO: Listeners of Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, November 8, 2007
    FROM: Roy W. Spencer
    RE: GLOBAL WARMING STUDY HOAX

    “Yesterday (11/7/07), a “research study” was circulating on the internet which claimed to have found the “real” reason for global warming. Even though the hoax was quite elaborate, and the paper looked genuine, a little digging revealed that the authors, research center, and even the scientific journal the study was published in, did not exist. I sent an e-mail to Rush about the issue regarding the hoax, with a copy of the “research study.” Unfortunately…he thought that I was calling global warming a hoax, rather than the study”

  53. #53 MarkB
    May 12, 2010

    “Too bad I can’t find that cartoon.”

    I’d love to see that. It seems to capture the media’s treatment of global warming denialism in a nutshell. Claims by Moon landing hoaxers are either ignored, or at least certainly scrutinized if covered at all. The media treats global warming deniers as nearly unassailable truth-tellers.

  54. #54 Stu
    May 12, 2010

    Russell @ 52,

    Arf! Is that legit? That’s pretty arse-burstingly funny if true.

  55. #55 Timothy Chase
    May 12, 2010

    I had written:

    …Too bad I can’t find that cartoon.

    MarkB responded:

    I’d love to see that. It seems to capture the media’s treatment of global warming denialism in a nutshell. Claims by Moon landing hoaxers are either ignored, or at least certainly scrutinized if covered at all. The media treats global warming deniers as nearly unassailable truth-tellers.

    Ask and ye shall receive…

    Cartoon: The Climate Change Hoax

    http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/english/2009/12/cartoon-the-climate-change-hoax.html

  56. #56 Timothy Chase
    May 12, 2010

    PS

    Not quite the way I remember it — but maybe just a little better.

  57. #57 MarkB
    May 12, 2010

    Thanks, Tim (#55). That made my day.

  58. #58 MarkB
    May 12, 2010

    I can’t imagine the level of hysteria if any climate scientist had the kind of close relationship and communication link with an extreme political hack as Roy Spencer does with Rush Limbaugh. Revkin would be throwing fits, I’m sure, saying climate science credibility has been destroyed. Then again, double standards…

    “RUSH: Our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer has just sent me something. I’ve been wondering about this. He must have been reading my mind. We’ve got 5,000 barrels a day being spilled from the rig, and Dr. Spencer looked into it. You know, we’ve talked of this before. There’s natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil — and the ocean’s pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. ”

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042910/content/01125113.guest.html

    So now Spencer is providing talking points in defense of Big Oil for his buddy Rush.

    Anthony Watts has his own political connections.

    Providing web resources:

    http://butterepublicans.com/2008/10/06/chico-city-council-debate-tonight-support-our-candidates/

    Outrage over alleged scrutiny of Joe the Plumber:

    http://butterepublicans.com/2008/10/27/government-computers-used-to-background-joe-the-plumber/

    Deep fear over a “liberal supermajority”:

    http://butterepublicans.com/2008/10/18/from-the-wsj-what-happens-if-obama-gets-elected/

  59. #59 Stu
    May 12, 2010

    >There’s natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil — and the ocean’s pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now

    Right. This reminds me of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006). Because you can totally compare the oil spilled from a point source with seabed seepage over a wide area – just like you can compare anthropogenic CO2 mostly emmitted over just 250 years with natural CO2 over all geological time.

    Morons. (Spencer and K&C!)

  60. #60 John Hooper
    May 13, 2010

    Does anyone know if the “Globe” is still “warming” or whether the “climate” is simply “changing?” It’s so hard to tell the latter from “shit are happen.”

  61. #61 Lars Karlsson
    May 13, 2010

    MarkB @ 58,

    I looked at the link where Rush refers to Spencer, and the contents were so insane that after a while I literally had to turn my face away from the screen.

  62. #62 Mike M
    May 13, 2010

    Ummm, it’s patently impossible to get an actual photograph of the submerged portion of an iceberg from that angle. Even in the clearest of water viewing down from just off vertical you cannot see much more than about 30 to 40 feet down. So to me it was obviously an illustration the moment I first saw it as opposed to some lame photoshop of a ‘stranded’ polar bear, (they can swim a hundred miles and alas, their primary food source is not on top of ice, …it is in the water!).

  63. #63 Mike M
    May 13, 2010

    MarkB | May 12, 2010 9:11 PM, True the seepage is over a much much wider area so the oil spreads out on the surface to a very thin film only a few molecules thick. However, nature does indeed occasionally burp up huge amounts in one place not unlike this well disaster.

    Liberal dominated media intentionally almost NEVER mentions that or the seepage in general at all let alone that the amount is staggering – TWO Exxon Valdez tanker’s worth seep into the GOM every year! I read that the GOM seepage contributes about one half of the amount of natural seepage over the entire planet.

    Whoever comes up with a cheap way to gather up the film, whether it’s man-induced or seepage, will be a very wealthy person.

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    May 13, 2010

    > …their primary food source is not on top of ice, …it is in the water!

    Perhaps [not so much](http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/polar-bear/diet.htm) – scroll down to the “FORAGING AND EATING” section and count how many methods involve the polar bear hunting without ice versus how many depend on the ice.

  65. #65 John
    May 13, 2010

    Does this sound at all like Brent and Sunspot?

    * 1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
    * 2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
    * 3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
    * 4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
    * 5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
    * 6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship.

  66. #66 John
    May 13, 2010

    Sorry so many windows open, wrong thread!

  67. #67 hushashi
    May 15, 2010

    What ever happened to “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover” ?

  68. #68 Ozonator
    May 15, 2010

    LABI Limbaugh can plug Roy ’d-rage’ and victims in Haiti – DR and should be able to plug an oil leak with a photoshoped berg.

    “Global warming, I gotta … plug … Dr. Roy Spencer … our official climatologist. … the so-called scientific community … they’re idiots. … the sun (which they’ve rejected) … ” (“Dr. Roy Spencer’s New Book”; rushlimbaugh.com; 4/20/10) and “CALLER:  … Is it possible that somebody on the other side might … to try … shut off … any more offshore oil drilling? … all of a sudden we have this huge leak. … RUSH: … suspicions … an explosion. … people died … Obama probably thinks the tea party blew up the rig.  … (laughing) … is enough to prove that offshore oil drilling is unsafe and should never be done. … Our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer has just sent me … seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now.  … Even places that have been devastated by oil slicks like … Alaska … The place is pristine now. … It’s as natural as the ocean water is” (“Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf”; 4/29/10) (rushlimbaugh.com). From the mother of all weather vains and storm soldiers (SS), “Erectile dysfunction … Limbaugh … “I had a great time in the Dominican Republic. Wish I could tell you about it.” … Limbaugh had decried drug use and abuse … often made the case that drug crimes deserve punishment” (“Rush Limbaugh Detained With Viagra”; CBS/AP; cbsnews.com, 7/27/06).

  69. #69 jakerman
    May 15, 2010

    >*What ever happened to “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover” ?*

    You [tell us](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/roy_spencers_great_photoshop_b.php#comment-2505332) hushashi?

  70. #70 Sup Spot
    May 18, 2010

    Why AGW has become a dogma and corrupt the scientific method.
    There has formed an opportunistic cabal comprised of Big Business (Cap’n Trade), Big Government (carbon tax), Big Science (billions for research), Big Eco-Green (billions for wind and solar), Big Media (Gore/Suzuki and a new global warming apocalypse story every day) , Big Socialism (IPCC and U.N. wealth re-distribution) money, money, money follow the money. AGW has now become a holy cause formed out of the un-holy alliance outlined above.

    I laud those like Spencer who take on the money machine of this scope (I’ve never seen anything like it), good luck your going to need it.

  71. #71 chek
    May 18, 2010

    Sup Spot said: “I laud those like Spencer who take on the money machine of this scope (I’ve never seen anything like it), good luck your going to need it.”

    Fortunately for the general population, the paranoid have little impact on those not in their immediate family circle.

  72. #72 Kingfillins
    July 19, 2011

    Thats extremely PATHETIC. This guy is talking with common seance and expertise and thats the best you can do? So there are no graphs in there you can claim have been miss interpreted??? Why not praise him for adding balance to this political football? Using the myth of Cigernetics are we being duped into the New World Order?
    Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2j3BhL47c
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7276Z-n34&feature=relmfu
    This issue is about science presumably.
    SO why not incorporate actual science into the debate?
    BECAUSE THIS IS A POLITICAL ISSUE….
    IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE.