Climate Trolls – An Illustrated Bestiary

H

Haiku

Makes the ganglia twitch.
A Few Things Ill Considered


As you travel the inter-tubes in search of learned discourse, understanding and information to prepare you for the coming climate cataclysms, you will see many curious creatures, some common, some rare, who are here for the sole purpose of deterring, deceiving and confusing you. Some will pray on your admitted ignorance or uncertainty. Some will pray on your subconscious wish that climate change not be real or if it is, it will be benign. Some will seem to engage sincerely but seek only to lure you so deep into the rabbit hole you will be unable to return. Some will dazzle you with words so long and unfamiliar and thoughts so obscure and eccentric that you’ll feel you must believe. Some will simply badger and harass you until you can take no more. It is a harsh and dangerous world. This is why I wish to provide you a guide to these many and varied beings you will surely come across as you venture ever deeper into their native realm. May it be a light for you in dark places, when all other lights go out.

An Illustrated Bestiary of the Climate Blogworld
The Galileo Gambiter – the harder you laugh at them the more sure they are that time will ultimately vindicate their transparent crack-pottery. No hypothesis is too far-fetched, no scientific reference too obscure and no twists of logic too contorted to be presented as irrefutable proof that they are right and everyone, and I mean everyone, else is dead wrong. No appeals to common sense or long established text book science in any field will shake their confidence.

How they see themselves How the world sees them

Favorite blog: Judith Curry’s blog
Special attack: Dense, impenetrable jargon that is actually meaningless gibberish.
Favorite Topic: The laws of thermodynamics, galactic cosmic rays.
Best counter: Respond very sparingly or ignore completely. Under no circumstances make a serious effort at persuasion!

———–

The Auditor – Every new research paper is examined not for its logic, focus or internal consistency but instead is mercilessly scoured for incomplete or misstated descriptions of methods, unavailable or messy online archives of data, computer code that does not run on every machine of any configuration right out of the box, statistical assumptions that rely on understanding the physical reality they are describing. All explanations offered are only excuses for shoddy work, all acknowledgments of possible alternate approaches are admissions of fraud. Such treatment is, of course, reserved exclusively for papers that support the climate consensus.

How they see themselves How the world sees them

Favorite blog: Climate Audit
Special attack: Relentlessly ignore the forest while hammering away on the weakest tree (usually a Bristlecone Pine)
Favorite Topic: MBH98, a fourteen year old dendrochronology study of temperatures over the past 1000 years and the iconic “Hockey stick” graph it produced. Also any related statistical minutiae, usually misrepresented.
Best counter: There is none.

———-

The Sanctity of Science concern troll – Why oh why are climate scientists and their defenders so mean? If only Gavin Schmidt and the Real Climate team would be less snarky we could all trust the IPCC reports. (The abusive vitriol and real life death threats directed at working climate scientists never get noticed, of course.) For these creatures, the over-arching issue of our time is not mass species extinction, the possible collapse of global civilization or environmental destruction via climate chaos, rather it is how the reputation of scientists as the dispassionate, robotic investigators of irrelevant minutiae is threatened. Scientists must hurry back to the lab and stop all the hysterics about floods, famines and sea level rise before people actually listen!

How they see themselves How the world sees them



Favorite blog: Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog
Special attack: You just said “We have to do something!!” You are now a “policy advocate” and now that you have politicized your science anything you have to say is inadmissible. Go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect any more research funding.
Favorite Topic: The science-politics interface and how science has no place there (?).
Best counter: Ignore.

———-

The Not the IPCCer – whatever was said on whatever topic by any of the IPCC reports, the opposite must be true. Indeed there has never been a single correct statement made or paper published by any member of mainstream climate science. This conviction extends to even the most non-controversial and well supported contentions found in the literature and is accompanied by complete ignorance of what is found in the literature.

How they see themselves How the world sees them

Favorite blog: Watts Up With That
Special attack: Peer review really means “Pal review” and Michael Mann and Phil Jones control all the major journals and all the world’s science institutions.
Favorite Topic: Whatever the latest typo found in the latest IPCC report is.
Best counter: Light. The copious self-contradictions permeating their minds thrives only in darkness.

———-

The Faux Skeptic – any study that in any way is consistent with a warming world caused by human activity is met with immediate and intense suspicion and scrutiny and ever escalating demands for more evidence. No assumptions of anything, no matter how reasonable, are allowed, everything must be derived again from first principles. Simultaneously, every vapid and transparently, embarrassingly wrong blog post put up on Watts up With That or Climate Etc is swallowed whole, pointers to the blindingly obvious refutations are either invisible or met with the disbelief described in the previous sentence.

How they see themselves How the world sees them

Favorite blog: Watts Up With That
Special attack: A not so quiet superiority complex.
Favorite Topic: Themselves
Best counter: Try to expose the hypocrisy of pretending to be a skeptic about everything except anything that goes against the scientific consensus.

———-

Read the rest and see the awesome pictures here.... http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2012/10/climate-trolls-an-illustrated-bestiary/ Well done and illustrated! LOL
 
If warmers spent a little time trying to understand the weaknesses in their theory, they might understand. But these folks are dogmatic and they simply practice confirmation bias.

The science has not proven CO2 forcing drives climate.
 
tinfoil said:
If warmers spent a little time trying to understand the weaknesses in their theory, they might understand. But these folks are dogmatic and they simply practice confirmation bias. The science has not proven CO2 forcing drives climate.
Click to expand...


What has the science proven?
 
the science has proven CO2 concentration follows ocean temperature fluctuations and CO2 forcing (and the dreaded feedback) is not the driver of the climate changes and merely adds to the reradiating of IR rays already reflecting back from the Earth. The claim that further climbs in concetration with trap ever more IR rays is not backed up by the math since 90% of the possible radiative effect of CO2 would be realized at 10 PPM. The CO2 can not trap more IR rays than there are existing.
 
tinfoil said:
the science has proven CO2 concentration follows ocean temperature fluctuations and CO2 forcing (and the dreaded feedback) is not the driver of the climate changes and merely adds to the reradiating of IR rays already reflecting back from the Earth. The claim that further climbs in concetration with trap ever more IR rays is not backed up by the math since 90% of the possible radiative effect of CO2 would be realized at 10 PPM. The CO2 can not trap more IR rays than there are existing.
Click to expand...

Link?

And, BTW, is the climate getting warmer?
 
The minute you mention them they show up to declare themselves exhibit one! The illustrations in the article at the link are still better! LMAO!

The Koch Brothers CATO institute and their fake climate reports....


Others covering this story:

How Stupid Does Cato Institute think Congress Is? Oh, right…. - Peter Sinclair, Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Pat Michaels Erases the Arctic – Eli Rabett, Rabett Run
Fake “ADDENDUM: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” - William Connelly, Stoat
Fake ‘addendum’ by conservative group tries to undo federal climate report - Douglas Fischer, The Daily Climate
Fake Addendum by Contrarian Group Tries to Undo U.S. Government Climate Report, Douglas Fischer, Scientific American
Cato Institute counterfeit U.S. climate change impacts assessment, Rick Piltz, Climate Science Watch
Koch Brothers Produce Counterfeit Climate Report to Deceive Congress, Connor Gibson, Greenpeace
Cato publishes deceptive government climate report “addendum.”, David Wagner, The Atlanic Wire
Koch Brothers Produce Counterfeit Climate Report to Deceive Congress, Connor Gibson, DeSmog Blog
Cato Institute Crafts Fake ‘Addendum’ To Federal Climate Report: ‘It’s Not An Addendum, It’s A Counterfeit’, Douglas Fischer, Climate Progress
Climate Deniers To Release Rip-Off Report, Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones
Cato’s Cargo-Cult Pseudo-Science Climate “addendum”, Jan Dash, UU-UNO Climate Change Task Force
Cato Institute Crafts Fake ‘Addendum’ To Federal Climate Report: ‘It’s Not An Addendum, It’s A Counterfeit’, Douglas Fischer, Sierra Activist
Will media fall for fake Cato climate report?, Kevin Grandia, Daily Kos
Brief: Cato Institute’s “Addendum: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”, Guest, Climate Science Watch
Climate Deniers Ready Deceptive Report, Alexander Reed Kelly, Truthdig
Look-alike Cato report on climate misleads, scientists say, Emily Heil, Washington Post
Cato Institute Helpfully Makes Its Fake Climate Report Look Like Actual Government Climate Report, Except Fake, Doktor Zoom, Wonkette

links here
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/201...aels-trying-to-pass-us-a-counterfeit-20-bill/

What if I were to tell you that the one on the left was provided by a member of the United States Treasury and had the endorsement of virtually every currency expert on the planet? What if I told you that the one on the right was passed by a guy who has a history of deception and that virtually every currency expert thinks the one on the right is fake?

I am guessing that you think the one on the left is real and the one on the right is a fake because you considered the credibility of the people who passed that bill to you.

Now keep your “credibility eyes” open when Patrick Michaels tries to pass you a counterfeit document that is supposed to make you and our elected officials believe climate change is not a major concern for the United States.



REAL REPORT

CATO COUNTERFEIT

REAL REPORT

CATO COUNTERFEIT
To the average person the counterfeit report by Cato Institute looks real. How do we know it is a counterfeit? The United States Global Change Research Program’s report (the one on the left) was published in 2009 while the Cato Counterfeit was released this year. The report on the right is a copy which might fool the unsuspecting receiver much like a fake $20 can fool a person if it is a good-looking copy.

We have seen counterfeit reports before. The notorious Oregon Petition pushed by S. Fred Singer and many other deniers also arrived in the mail with a counterfeit “journal article” that was made to look exactly like that of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. S. Fred Singer and Heartland Institute published the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) that was a counterfeit of the real IPCC reports.

One must wonder why these people spend countless hours dissing the IPCC and our top scientists yet they keep taking great pains to copy the reports from these experts!

So it is clear that the Cato Institute report is a copy which is certainly unprofessional and no self-respecting scientist would sign onto such a transparent attempt to fool the public and our policymakers. I decided to check out the publishing background of the authors of both reports. The table below shows the number of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles by the authors since 2006 along with the h-index value according to SCOPUS. The h-index reflects both the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. A high h-index means that a researcher produces high-quality, credible research that is often cited by other scholars. Conversly, a scientist who produces many papers which are cited very few times would have a low h-index.

(there is a graph that doesn't reproduce...look at the link)

I also linked Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling because they appear to be legitimate experts until you peek behind the curtain to see the groups they run around with. Balling is closely aligned with S. Fred Singer who is a well-documented science denier. He is so bad I call him the George Costanza of Science.

Of the seven authors of the Cato Counterfeit Report only five have any publications and two have dubious backgrounds. There really is no comparison between the authors of the real report from USGCRP and the authors of the fake report. (Cato Institute has a history of documents with few real experts named. See: Congressman Rohrabacher’s Paper Tiger.)

Furthermore, virtually every publishing scientist and all international science academies are telling us that the information found in the real report is valid. And it is not just scientists. In my previous blog post I discussed how experts from the military, health, and insurance sectors are warning us that climate change is a serious threat to Americans and to the rest of the world.

Let’s look at one of the Key Findings listed in the Cato Counterfeit Report:

5. Crop and livestock production will adapt to climate change: There is a large body of evidence that demonstrates substantial untapped adaptability of US agriculture to climate change, including crop-switching that can change the species used for livestock feed. In addition, carbon dioxide itself is likely increasing crop yields and will continue to do so in increasing increments in the future. (pp. 102-118)

Honestly, they have a lot of nerve publishing this nonsense when so many Americans (and others around the world) are suffering from massive droughts and fires. Increased frequency of drought and fires has been predicted to increase due to global warming and it is only going to get worse if we listen to counterfeiters.


Texas farmer who lost his livelihood

Telling farmers that CO2 is plant food is like telling a person on fire that they should take vitamins because vitamins are good for you. (Hint: water is kind of important too!)

The late Carl Sagan was fond of saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I do not believe he said extraordinary copying.

Refuse to accept the counterfeit $20 bill.


Do You Trust a Group Who Supports This?

(John Mashey peered behind the curtain of Cato Institute’s founder and president emeritus, Ed Crane. See The Battle for the Cato Institute: Crane was quite happy taking money year after year from the tobacco companies, who stay in business addicting children, of whom about half will eventually die of smoking-related diseases. Very few people start smoking after age 18, so the only thing that really counts is getting kids to smoke. From 1991-2001, CATO was 3rd biggest think tank recipient of Philip Morris funds. Crane thanks RJ Reynolds, who was then running Joe Camel, the most successful campaign to get more kids to smoke earlier. But RJR’s money was good:

“We are delighted to have RJ Reynolds as a significant corporate supporter of the Institute and look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead…. Let’s get together for lunch on one of your upcoming trips to Washington.”

Reynolds:

It is our pleasure to be able to support the work that is being done by the Cato Institute…)

Do you think Patrick Michaels and his Cato Institute Counterfeiters are representing your best interests?

UPDATE 10/23: “We, Donald Boesch, Lynne Carter, Nancy Grimm, Katherine Hayhoe, James McCarthy, Jonathan Overpeck, Benjamin Santer, John Stone, Gerry Schwartz, Bradley Udall, and Donald Wuebbles, are members of the Federal Advisory Committee that wrote the 2009 report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. As authors of that report, we are dismayed that the report of the Cato Institute, ADDENDUM: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, expropriates the title and style of our report in such a deceptive and misleading way. The Cato report is in no way an addendum to our 2009 report. It is not an update, explanation, or supplement by the authors of the original report. Rather, it is a completely separate document lacking rigorous scientific analysis and review.” Read the full statement for the real experts here.


_____________________

Another stunt from Cato. Instead of taking their own position, they’re trying to pass off false information in a format that mimics the real thing. If they had a real case why not stand up and put it out there to be reviewed on its own merit? Obviously because it won’t pass muster, so they try to slip everyone a ringer, just like the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” or the “Heartland Institute”.
 
Last edited:
tinfoil said:
the science has proven CO2 concentration follows ocean temperature fluctuations and CO2 forcing (and the dreaded feedback) is not the driver of the climate changes and merely adds to the reradiating of IR rays already reflecting back from the Earth. The claim that further climbs in concetration with trap ever more IR rays is not backed up by the math since 90% of the possible radiative effect of CO2 would be realized at 10 PPM. The CO2 can not trap more IR rays than there are existing.
Click to expand...

She is quoting Coby Beck who is a well known polemicist who uses ad hom tactics to try to rubbish alternate views to the perceived orthodoxy. He is a journalist for Grist magazine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top