Sunday, March 30, 2014

Fabricating Climate Doom - Steele's Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style - examined

It's worth pointing out.
As with other climate science "skeptics" - our good Mr. Steele is great at making dramatic claims, freely attacking the integrity of accomplished scientists and their work with his one-sided story-telling.
But, when confronted with his many misrepresentations he won't defend his claims.
What's to be made of that? Perhaps he knows dang well that his charges are indefensible.  {4/4/14}

Steele muses: "More critical analyses and respectful debate are the only paths to follow if we are ever to free ourselves from the shackles of our own illusions."  I couldn't agree more. 

Yet Steele's own rhetoric fails his lofty hope of engaging in an intellectually honest and constructive debate.  

Allow me to explain by reviewing the details of Jim Steele's third broadside against Dr. Parmesan and her work.

Fabricating Climate Doom - Part 3: Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style
~ ~ ~ 

Friday, March 28, 2014

JUST THE SCIENCE of Fabricating Climate Doom: Parmesan's Butterfly Effect

In a previous post, "Fabricating Climate Doom: looking at Jim Steele’s deception" I did a paragraph by paragraph review of Jim Steele's article "Fabricating Climate Doom: Parmesan’s Butterfly Effect" that turned into quite the marathon.  Most of it turned out to deal with Steele's art of rhetorical manipulation and the structure of his sales pitch, since there's so little actual science about the thing.

That is why I've decided to do a second, thankfully shorter, science-focused review of that same article.  This time I strip away most of Jim's rhetorical fancy dancing and focus on his various scientific claims.  Once again Steele's words are in courier font and unaltered, though many have been jettisoned.  If you want to look at his full text visit here.

I have emailed Mr. Steele and invited him for a visit to take a look.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Of Recursive Fury, SkepticForum and science denialist's strategy of harassment

Interesting news today, particularly in light of my own recent experience at with one Jim Steele and the moderator of said forum. The same moderator who believes injecting graphics of an exploding head (link with care, it's quite disgusting) into what's supposed to be a serious discuss about climate science is fair play.

But try going toe to toe with a malicious climate science denialist, even though the fella in question, one Jim Steele, grossly misrepresents and downright lies about the science - plus he injects copious amounts of slander (and more lies) towards serious published scientists he doesn't like, or anyone else that gets in his way.  But,  you'd better not call him on it over at the "skeptic's forum".

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund Needs Your Help!

I'd like to pass along the following public service announcement. 
Please if you can help can, do help, 
because the denialists are getting nastier by the minute.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund Needs Your Help!

The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) was launched in January 2012 by Scott Mandia and Joshua Wolfe to provide valuable legal resources to our climate scientists who are in need. CSLDF needs your help.

CSLDF needs to raise $80,000. The great news is that philanthropist Charles Zeller has graciously offered to MATCH the first $40,000 that is raised and philanthropist Peter Cross has offered to put up the first $10,000. This means CSLDF already has the first $20,000 of the $80,000 goal. We need YOU to help CSLDF reach its goal.

For the previous two years, CSLDF has been managed by Scott and Josh  “from their kitchens” They both have full-time jobs and families with small children and neither receives compensation for their time. Scott and Josh have accomplished much over the years on a part-time basis. To date, CSLDF has:
·       Raised litigation fees to help Dr. Michael Mann defend climate science from politically-motivated witch-hunts
·       Provided resources to legal experts from PEER so they could offer free legal advice to scientists at professional conferences
·       Offered legal counsel to scientists hit with frivolous Freedom of Information Act requests
·       Provided legal workshops to scientists at professional conferences. 
·       Offered a series of legal education webinars partnering with American Geophysical Union (AGU).
But now it is time to “go professional” and that is where you can help. $80,000 can move the organization to this next level. CSLDF will use your tax-deductible donations to hire a full-time Executive Director who will manage the day to day operations of providing legal help to our experts as well as increasing fundraising efforts. Having the full-time professional helps to assure that CSLDF will be there for our scientists years down the road. After all, climate change is not going anywhere and the sad fact is that neither will the legal attacks on our scientists.

Donations are tax-deductible and can be sent by visiting the CSLDF website at and clicking the Donate button. Donations are sent to our fiscal sponsor PEER but are earmarked for CSLDF. Through PEER, a private non-profit organization organized under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue code, your contribution will be tax deductible.

You can also send a check made out to PEER, with Climate Science LDF on the memo line, to support effort to help scientists defend themselves:

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
c/o PEER
2000 P Street, NW #240
Washington, D.C. 20036

International donors can use PayPal. Send to as the recipient and put CSLDF in the subject line of your payment.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Fabricating Climate Doom: looking at Jim Steele’s deception

{did some clean up editing 4/7/14}

I have written another post where I strip down this article to it's few scientific claims.  Visit:"Fabricating Climate Doom: Checking Up on Jim Steele’s Science"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It's worth pointing out.
As with other climate science "skeptics" - our good Mr. Steele is great at making dramatic claims, freely attacking the integrity of accomplished scientists and their work with his one-sided story-telling.
But, when confronted with his many misrepresentations he won't defend his claims.
What's to be made of that? Perhaps he knows dang well that his charges are indefensible.  {4/4/14}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fabricating Climate Doom: Jim Steele’s Butterfly Effect
{Yes, it's true, this post is a heck of a marathon, but for the student interested in examining the art of rhetorical deception, I think it could be worth your time.

It's also true that I'm not doing nice.  But, considering the  flood of the slander and misrepresentations Mr. Steele allows himself towards serious scientists and their work  -  he ought to be man enough to take a little.

But, as is so typical with bullies, give 'em a taste of their own and off they run whining about unfairness.  The fact remains I document numerous examples of Mr. Steele misrepresenting the science and saying things that are plain false.}

I frequent an obscure on-line chat-room called SkepticForum and recently one Jim Steele joined the conversation with an opening thread titled: "More Respectful Climate Debate is Essential" wherein he links to his own essays which turn out to be extremely biased attack pieces and an excellent example of 'science by rhetoric' as opposed to evidence.  And since the conversation over there is like trying to dialogue with a gang of predatory alley cats, I'm going to review Jim Steele's essay on my own terms.

I include the complete text of Jim Steele's essay, no additions or subtractions, in courier font - with my comments and links to further information interspersed.  One reason I'm doing this is because Mr. Steele has quite successfully astro-turfed the internet with his science-fiction and I believe his game needs to be exposed.

I invite you on an exploration into Mr. Steele's alternate reality.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Prof. Inez Fung: "Anatomy of a Climate Model" the video

Climate models are constantly being misrepresented and the public has been sold impossible expectations by folks more interested in power-politics than learning about our planet.

Climate models are tools.  Tools to help scientists understand dynamics in action.  No one has ever pretended they could accurately prediction the future.  They inform us about dynamics and trends.  We human minds need to figure out the rest.  

One of the slickest, and sickest, tricks folks like McIntyre, SenInhofe, Morano, Heartland, and pals have pulled off, is misleading the public into believing that if climate models weren't perfect they deserve ridicule.  

Sadly the folks that attack climate models the most, are least interested in learning about them.  But, there must be people who do want to learn, 
I tell myself.

That is why I'm sharing this excellent talk by Professor Inez Fung.  

GoogleTechTalks  |  February 8, 2011  |  55:30 minutes

The first successful numerical weather forecast was made on the ENIAC (with fewer than 10 words memory) in 1950.  This talk traces the development of atmospheric General Circulation Models (GCMs) for weather forecasting, to Global Climate Models (GCMs) and Earth System Models (ESMs) to illustrate the guts and gore of the huge codes.  

If we cannot predict the weather beyond 2 weeks, what do we mean by climate projections for the next century?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Professor Inez Fung takes us on a fast paced tour of the complexities of climate models.  Along the way, she conveys the why and how of scientists figuring out the challenges of describing our global heat distribution engine mathematically.

Professor Inez Fung is speaking to a university audience so perhaps at moments she talks just at, or barely above, the heads of us regular folks.  Still, for those familiar with the basics of the science and a curiosity to learn more, you'll find this expert's talk fascinating and worth paying attention to.  

As part of my own learning process for especially good talks I make a rough time signature log for later reference and so I'll share that also.

Friday, March 14, 2014

Global Warming "Hiatus" and the Global Heat Distribution Engine

Over at SkepticForum I continue hearing echo's of David Rose's erroneous claim that 'global warming stopped 16 years ago' and it makes no sense to me how such a disingenuous hoax lives on and on.

When I hear someone write or say there's been a pause in global warming, or some hiatus, I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't have any conception of our planet's dynamic multi-layered climate system, it's sad. Worst is when they refuse to look at genuine information and learn from it.

If these types had a conception of heat and energy moving throughout our planet, they would appreciate that the global ocean plays a huge roll in heat absorption and circulation.  That's why I've collected this series of excellent educational videos to share.

It would be wonderful imagining skeptical folks giving this information a chance to soak in.  Understanding that scientific measurements do the best they can with what they have and they'll never be perfect.  But, that shouldn't stop us from learning what we can from the information they can gather.   Maybe then they'd realize that setting impossibly high expectations harms us all.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Global Warming Policy Foundation misleading the public

This seems like a timely article to Repost.  Not much to add, except that if you've been immersed in the climate science "skeptics" echo-chamber, here's your change to learn about The Rest of The Story regarding "climate sensitivity". . .

With thanks to the John Cook and the other volunteers at Skeptical here's an article by Dana Nuccitelli. 

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded (via Skeptical Science)
Posted on 10 March 2014 by dana1981 The UK anti-climate policy advocacy group Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has published a report written by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok claiming “the IPCC hid the good news” regarding climate sensitivity…

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims - examined

Note to Professor Emeritus Hayden, 

A fan of yours recommended your EPA letter with the following comment:
Anonymous said: "I suggest you read this submission to the EPA by Howard C. Hayden Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn. (Now I wonder what will be wrong with Professor Hayden? Will HE be too old or too young or ONLY a physics professor? See how silly your screams of deniers end up being!! Who are the ONLY deniers? hehehe Sort of says it all - hope you post it - know you won't - BUT what I DO know is that you'll READ IT. That is all I aim to do - my last post here - goodbye & Cheers," {comment on A look at the world of climate change denial}
And indeed, I did read your letter and thus began another excursion into the wormhole of science by rhetoric.  'Anonymous' challenges me with: " what will be wrong with Professor Hayden?"  I have no idea what's wrong with you.

But, I can recognize a great many things wrong with that dishonest letter you wrote to the EPA.
For starters, who actually believes they can in "a simple one-letter proof" disprove the accumulated works of over a century, involving tens of thousands of researchers and technicians.   Including studies into radiative properties of greenhouse gases that have resulted in successful satellite communication systems; various forms of Earth bound astronomical observations; and heat seeking air-to-air missiles, to name a few.  

Second, what you present doesn't even reach the level of 'science in a vacuum.'  There's no science at all!  It's all 'science by rhetoric.'  

I can't help but wonder at the ideological bias that allows yourself to write such an unmitigated piece of trash.  Your letter reveals either an astounding unfamiliarity with Earth systems and their evolution - or a complete disregard for those systems.  

Did you ever stop to examine your own ideological blinders before writing such a purely political letter?  What ever happen to a little healthy self skepticism?  In any event, I've taken the time to point out the many falsehoods in your letter.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I have emailed Professor Hayden and welcome his critique of my critique. {Hayden's words are unaltered and appear in Courier font.}  I have included many resources to support my claims. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics 
October 27, 2009 
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency

Friday, March 7, 2014

The Global Warming Policy Foundation collection

{ Check out Dan Olner's improved banner at the bottom of this post. }
~ ~ ~

Recently the grand sounding Global Warming Policy Foundation, {in actuality a tiny club of non-climatologist politicians}, has been making the news for their outrageously misleading claims regarding global warming observations and climatological understanding.

It's worth noting that the GWPF's title banner has a surface temperature graph that goes from 2001-2012, typifying the tunnel vision they are committed to.

Think about it, our man-made global warming geophysical experiment is the result of a couple centuries worth of increasing human impact on our atmosphere, and our children's decades are stretching out before us.  Pretending that global warming can be discussed by focusing exclusively on the last decade's surface temp is beyond deluded and crosses over into plain old calculated fraud.

Yet, for the Global Warming Policy Foundation's brain-trust Lord Lawson the conservative politician and journalist and his sidekick the PhD of social anthropology Benny Peiser there seems to be no past history to consider nor any future worth worrying about.  

Most frightening is that they've become such a hit in such a short time thanks to that scared faith based sector of our population that simply does not want to know, folks who are happy to be fed lies, rather than challenging themselves with learning about what we are doing to the planet we depend on.

OK, that's enough of me. 
The rest of this post is a collection of articles and information from various sources highlighting many deceptions the devious GWPF has been caught at.  But, first I'll let the GWPF introduce themselves in their own words.  Then we shall see examples of how poorly they live up to those professed standards.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Roger Pielke Jr. Peddles Pernicious Poison

I don't think my title 'peddling pernicious poison' is too dramatic or misleading for the cynical game Pielke Jr. has been playing for years.  His reviews of climate science consistently leave out, and at times misrepresent, important evidence when it is inconsistent with the storyline he's peddling. Pielke's latest dust up has to do with his (and Dr. Roy Spencer'smisleading testimony before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works regarding droughts.

Pielke and Spencer misrepresent the science in order to validate their denying the link between anthropogenic global warming, changing weather patterns and drought.  And whereas Pielke and Spencer claim that there is no evidence linking a warming globe with increasing drought conditions, the evidence says something very different as John Holdren, the President's science advisor, explains quite clearly in the following statement.  

His words are untouched, though I have added some underlines and bold highlights, for easier scanning, along with adding a couple links to appropriate sources of further information.  At the end of this I've listed links to articles about other Pielke Jr. misdeeds.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
by John P. Holdren
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

28 February 2014 
In the question and answer period following my February 25 testimony on the Administration’s Climate Action Plan before the Oversight Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) suggested that I had misled the American people with comments I made to reporters on February 13, linking recent severe droughts in the American West to global climate change. To support this proposition, Senator Sessions quoted from testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee the previous July by Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist. Specifically, the Senator read the following passages from Dr. Pielke’s written testimony:

Monday, March 3, 2014

Australia's MARCH in MARCH - Wake Up Gov' !

One of my pen pals has written an interesting article reminding us that We The People do have options when governments devolve into private clubs who's only interest is furthering personal fortunes, while demanding that citizens remain blind to scientific reality and our own self-destructive habits.  Food for thought and action.

Lock the gates and take to the streets for climate change justice

 Michael Marriott  24 February 2014, 11:30am