Scepticism is bastardry, says head of ACF

THE president of the Australian Conservation Foundation has attacked the “scientific bastardry” of climate change sceptics amid weakening public consensus that humans are to blame.

And

He said the evidence for human-induced climate change was backed by virtually all scientists. He described the views of climate change sceptics as “illegitimate arguments that you could call scientific bastardry”.

Ian Lowe, who is also professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University, lamented the narrowing of the carbon tax debate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/scepticism-is-bastardry-says-head-of-acf/story-fn59niix-1226046544056

Lowe profers this wisdom in the Cook book editorial reviews:-

‘Climate Change denial is the biggest single obstacle to achieving a sustainable future. This book provides all the evidence and arguments you need to counter the campaign of misinformation. Read it, study it and spread its message widely.’

I wonder what the D-word count is for the entire Cook book?

Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Denial-Heads-Sand/dp/1849713367

Product Description;

Humans have always used denial.

When we are afraid, guilty, confused, or when something interferes with our self-image, we tend to deny it. Yet denial is a delusion. When it impacts on the health of oneself, or society, or the world it becomes a pathology.

Climate change denial is such a case. Paradoxically, as the climate science has become more certain, denial about the issue has increased. The paradox lies in the denial There is a denial industry funded by the fossil fuel companies that literally denies the science, and seeks to confuse the public. There is denial within governments, where spin-doctors use “weasel words” to pretend they are taking action. However there is also denial within most of us, the citizenry. We let denial prosper and we resist the science.

The CSIRO also provide a similar review

This book shows how we can break through denial, accept reality, and thus solve the climate crisis. The authors examine the nature of climate change denial, its history, how we let denial prosper, and how we can roll back denial. It summarises the climate science and explains uncertainty and probability. It also explains the social science behind denial.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6811.htm

A good deal of the “usual suspects” from the Denialsphere(tm) wade in with their tuppence. Mr PuckerClust does his best to bat them away but in the end he needs to implement a “moderation policy”.

Quite an entertaining read.

Written by Hans Schreuder, guest post | April 26 2011

This is a rebuttal based on Physics Trumps Right-Wing Ideology written by Mr. Puckerclust. Puckerclust begins his post thusly:

“Global warming deniers know as much about climate science as they do about brain surgery. Would you let them tell your doctor what to do about that tumor?

“Why do I–a professional physicist and lifetime member of the American Physical Society–accept the reality of human-caused global warming? Because I accept the following top-ten list of physics facts, which have never been disputed in the scientific literature. This is also why the American Physical Society of 47,000 physicists says “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring”.”

Before we set the record straight about those ten supposed physics facts, let’s also set the record straight on some preliminary information that Mr Puckerclust would like us to believe.

(a) The APS statement on climate change was not drafted or confirmed by “47,000 physicists” of the APS, but by the APS council.

(b) Many members of the APS have criticized the statement, incl. Harold Lewis who resigned in protest. Lewis’ analysis of the motivations behind the APS council position on climate change is better than anything we could come up with.

(c) Even APS editor Jeffrey Marque had to make the public admission ”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

(d) Furthermore, even if there was “consensus” on AGW by APS or any other institution this wouldn’t make the theory valid -unless Puckerclust is also willing to accept that the Sun had revolved around the Earth prior to 1543.

(e) The snide title of Puckerclust’s essay implies that those on the political left could not possibly dispute his opinions. That alone is far from the truth.

(f) By the way, nobody is denying that global warming occurred during the last decade of the last century, it’s just that the emissions of carbon dioxide have nothing to do with it.

Now for our point by point response, not just one, but all ten………..

http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8931-ten-physics-facts-setting-the-record-straight

Author: cohenite
Comment:
Richard C@99; I would add in respect of water vapor decline the Soloman paper:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

The Paltridge paper:

http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf

The Pierce paper:

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/papers/Pierce_et_al_AIRS_vs_models_2006GL027060.pdf

Of possibly more interest is the fact that in the overlapping spectrum CO2 reduces the emissivity of H2O:

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf

http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2809/1/Lapp_m_1960.pdf

This is well shown in a graph of H2O and CO2 in the overlapping spectrums:

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/spectra-h2o-co2-15um.png

This decline in the emissivity of H2O in the presence of CO2 means the dependency of AGW on climate sensivity from positive feedback from H2O is severely restrained and must be problematic.

Let’s counter the claim that CO2 has overridden all natural causes for the last 50 years. Only a couple of simple examples are necessary.

Figure 1 shows the change in Earth albedo produced by the Earthshine Project.

Figure 2 shows the plot of decreasing number of weather stations and global temperature.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/8923-ipcc-false-philosophical-footings-a-massive-deception

Gareth Renowden plays whack-a-mole with a moth-eaten feather duster, Tim Ball uses a wrecking ball.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/is-it-possible-our-new-chief-scientist-has-doubts-about-climate-science/

At least, he (wisely) appears to be keeping out of the politics