Bob Carter's fraudulent claim that global warming ended in 1998 seems to have been swallowed uncritically by lots of gullible global warming skeptics. Jim at Our Word is our Weapon plays whack a mole with a couple of them, Madsen Pirie and Scott Burgess. Coby Beck has more comments on Carter's cherry picking.
Also worth a look is Daniel Kirk-Davidoff at Real Climate on a Richard Lindzen op-ed that is doing the rounds.
More like this
Hey, remember how all the global warming skeptics used to say that warming wasn't happening because the satellite data didn't show a warming trend. Until in 2005 when they found a mistake in the satellite data and what do you know, it did show warming. And they stopped using that argument? Well…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global Warming is over.
Answer:
At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the…
Richard Lindzen has jumped on Bob Carter's global warming stopped in 1998 bandwagon.
Here's one slide from a presentation he gave at right-wing Swedish think tank.
In the text he claims that that there has been almost no rise since 1986, but in his talk (at 38:00) he told the audience to ignore…
One trouble with cherry picking is that you have to be very careful not to change anything or the whole thing falls apart.
Dennis Avery picks up Bob Carter's "Global Warming stopped in 1998" cherry but fluffs it
The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global…
somehow I can't post at realclimate, any idea why?
Fortunately, I saw the data and it's obvious that they cherry picked 1998. On the other hand, I still don't care.
I still don't care
Then why bother commenting?
"I can't post at realclimate"
143 results for erren site:realclimate.org.
Must have a different meaning for "can't" from the one I'm used to.
Then why bother commenting?
Because I do care about things people might do to try to "stop" global warming.
And note to Tim: have you seen this?
Chris O'N:
IMO, Hans' meaning of 'can't' may be: 'anything to discredit RC'.
Best,
D
That's too bad, Hans, but perhaps it will make you feel better to know that I can no longer post at climateaudit. The game seems to be that Steve M. disavows censorship but, in addition to the blatant blocking of Tim's trackbacks, allows "John A." a free hand in "tuning" the CA spam filter such that the end result is indistinguishable from censorship.
Wadard at http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/global-warming-denial-fu…
checks "to see if Greenpeace knew of [Carter] as an ExxonMobil funded climate change skeptic" and finds he is.
Steve Bloom, yup spot on, same applies to me. John A is free to insult me, my defence was swiftly removed.
Tim Lambert,
Here is an opportunity for you!
Start a topic "The rejected realclimate and climateaudit postings"
Steve Bloom,
I did not notice any contributions to the scientific debate from you on climateaudit, same for Peter Hearnden by the way.
Please do correct me if I am wrong.
The ghost of Bob Carter has popped up at economistsview.typepad.com in the comments section under an article called "Enemy of the Planet" by Paul Krugman...worth a look.
John Armour
Hans,
I expect better from you than simply parrotting the 'oh, you don't address the science' line that anyone not 'on message' over at CA gets, care to address the point about censorship? I can point you to copys some of the posts I've had deleted by pm over on Ukww if you wish.
This isn't a big issue, fact is everyone moderates/censors, CA included. I just wish CA's supporters would admit it.
Peter you just posted on CA on the BBC topic without being censored...
You adressed never the argument of treering proxies.
The examples where ontopic contributions by Ian Castles and Steve McIntyre were blatantly censored on RC is enough evidence for me.
Hans, indeed, but then, you've posted to RC, so what's you point? That RC moderates some posts? Yes it does. The CA never moderates post? Not true.
Sorry, that above post by me.
Interestingly, many of the people approvingly citing Carter's piece don't seem to have picked up on his "obvious" satirical intent which aimed at exposing the dangers of cherry-picking.
I'm sure Hans, Tim C. et al will be happy to disabuse them.
Peter:
CA censors off topic posts.
RC censors on topic posts.
Ian:
For everything on cherry picking (and apple picking) see climateaudit.
Come off the grass, Hans. CA only censors off topic posts when the topic is embarrassing to Steve M or John A. And they do delete on topic comments as well. And as for cherry picking I'll agree that Steve M was against cherry picking before he was in favour of it.
"Peter:
CA censors off topic posts.
RC censors on topic posts."
Hans, again, if you want evidence of what CA (well ykw) do PM me over on Ukww. Re RC, well we have your word, I'll accept that, will you accept mine?
Peter, you are the CA troll and you know it.
wrt RC
Juerg Luterbacher had a topic
24 Jan 2005
Anomalous Recent Warmth in Europe
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-lut-please-…
I could not post, although I had plenty to write:
A debatable European summer temperature since 1500
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/errenvsluterbacher.htm
"Peter, you are the CA troll and you know it."
No Hans, that's just an insult (the most objectional you've directed at me by some measure :( ) especially since you're unwilling to look at the evidence I've offered you (twice now). Oh, and your Luterbacher stuff is just trolling as well (see how petty name calling is???).
Now, how about you stop the name calling and get to the point? So, for the third time, do you, or don't you (more likely it seems), want to see the evidence of censoring that goes on at CA? Again, pm me at Ukww for details.
PH
done
Hans, confine your ad hominems to CA, please.
Oh, look:
Hans hijacks another thread, rendering it useless, that makes obvious the untenable position of the gullible fetishizers/rubes/ideologues.
Best,
D
Dano,
I suspect I've also contributed :( . Still, via pm, I think Hans and I have reached more of an understanding.
I don't like climate extremists.
So I don't like climate contrarians
and I don't like climate scaremongerers
"what does replicate mean?"
oh irony....
And then we have this garbage:
"Aussies' Suzuki heavier on rhetoric than on science
Tim Ball, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Unknown to most Canadians until this week, Australians have their very own David Suzuki, a self-promoting zoologist who has garnered a large and loyal following for his sensationalist views on climate change.
Like Suzuki, Aussie zoologist Tim Flannery has no professional credentials in the field and so blunders regularly while pushing governments to save the world from global warming."
...
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d622e9fa-cdc8-4163-8292-…
I can't believe this crap still exists, this libel or slander. Tim Flannery is most definitely qualified to speak on this matter. I heard him speak yesterday and he was definitely much more "on the ball" than Tim Ball is, despite his last name.
These contrarians are no "Friends of Science" as they proclaim they are, but toxic to science as they are badmouthing and denegrating all true climate scientists and their reputations.
Also, with the April 6 letter to the Canadian Prime Minister by some of these contrarians, there has been a more rational response yesterday:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/04/19/climate-change06041…
What appalls me is that certain politicians and "think-tankers" will listen to economists, mathematicians, and former mining executives (McKitrick, Essex, and McIntyre) on the topic of climate change over those who are actually climatologists (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, etc.). That's like trusting a plumber to perform open-heart surgery on a patient. Completely irrational.
Stephen Berg:
As a Calgonite, I'll have to step up and apologize for the Herald - it's embarassing, being from the city for which this is more or less the newspaper of record. But Calgary's the epicentre of the Canadian fossil fuel industry, and the Herald's editorial board make a very comfortable and cozy living out of telling the rest of us to butter our bums for the rich and powerful. Comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted. Another product of the consensus culture that we conceal under a scrim of rough, tough Western individuality. All the while we're in utter thrall to the carbon kings, and the Herald makes sure that they don't have to listen to any dissenting voices.
Lars, several of my relatives live in "Cowtown" and feel exactly the same way. I hope there's something you and your fellow sensible Calgarians can do to "rise up", so to speak.
Regards, fellow Canuck!
Thanks, Stephen. I'd have hoped for better when Ralph Klein got only 55% on his last leadership review, but I've a sneaking feeling that it was because the Tories are angling for someone worse.
Unknown to most Canadians until this week, Australians have their very own David Suzuki, a self-promoting zoologist who has garnered a large and loyal following for his sensationalist views on climate change.
Like Suzuki, Aussie zoologist Tim Flannery has no professional credentials in the field and so blunders regularly while pushing governments to save the world from global warming."
======
With respect to Tim Ball slandering our Tim Flannery as a mere zoologist, he left out the bits about him also being a biologist, humanist, mammologist and paleontologist.
He is director of the South Australian Museum, director of the Sustainability Round Table and also the State Science Council. He is also the National Geographic Society's Australasian representative.
In 2005 Flannery was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies.
Sir David Attenborough is quoted as saying "Tim Flannery is in the league of the all-time great explorers like Dr. David Livingstone."
What has Tim Ball done?
Stephen and Lars: seems to be a significant contingent of Stampeders (and ex-Stamps in my case) here. IIRC TL's an Ian Tyson fan. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?