Spam Journalism #66
Spam Journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add spice to an otherwise pointless article.
And now for a refreshing spot of global warming spam:
Sunspot theory for warming planet is shot down in flames
“Leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, have rounded on studies used by climate sceptics to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.
“The researchers – all experts in climate or solar science – say the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed.”
Let me state at the outset, that I am unfamiliar with the papers cited here or the arguments against them. Frankly, I don’t really care. But it is obvious to me that the scientists quoted above are only giving their opinion on a paper that other scientists find convincing. Therefore the heading “shot down in flames” and the hefty bias of the article against the sunspot theory are just spam designed to bolster the arguments of the Copenhagen climatologists. It contributes precisely nothing to the global warming debate. I assume it was just regurgitated from one of the Copenhagen press releases.
It contributes exactly nothing to the public’s understanding of the debate and is thus worthless.
Related posts:
- Hothouse I like Global Warming. Without the Global Warming industry, newspapers would be...
- Global Warping Now that our illustrious government has finally managed to pass,...
- Comparing Apples with Frogs Sir Peter Gluckman has written what I consider to be...
- High Tech Junk Science In what has to be the most high tech example...
- Spam Journalism #25 Spam Journalism: The spurious use of sensational headlines to add...
Dec 15 09 11:33 pm
When disputes in science are fought out in the Newspapers or when results are announced in press conferences before publication you know that there is an agenda at play rather than the pure pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. And that should set your skepticism antennae twitching.
I’ll tell you something else, a Russian astrophysicist predicted a cycle of lower than usual sunspot activity was about to start back in 2002 or so and that this would be reflected in a lowering of the global temperature. Both predictions seem to have been born out. Its late now but tomorrow I will try and find the paper and when exactly it was published.
The point is of course predictions made before the fact are far more compelling evidence in favor of a theory than models tweaked after the fact to accommodate observations they failed to predict – which is how the IPCC temperature models are developed.
I would go so far as to say that the origin of your linked story is a pre-emptive strike against this paper by those who have a dog in the AGW fight, I seen this before and now the stakes are higher than ever with public skepticism rising against the overwhelming majority and “the science is settled” view of climate change.
Andrei´s last blog ..Al Gore surprises scientist
Dec 16 09 9:54 am
The warmers have tried to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period because it offers proof that a warm Earth does not spin the climate out of control. They failed to convince most people because the evidence of the MWP is too strong.
Now, in a paper about to be released by Nature magazine, Prof Mann (the Hockeystick Mann)believes the MWP was caused by natural conditions.. especially the dreaded sun spots.
JC
Dec 16 09 9:56 am
The article is faulty in that it gives the impression that solar forcing has been dismissed by most climate scientists without there having been peer reviewed studies investigating the solar forcing theories of Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, and others this is not the case.
Solar forcing, GCR’s and other possible non-GHG explanations for resent warming have been studied, and these studies show that these possible explanations are not consistent with the evidence.
Wiki: Greenhouse gases and solar forcing affect temperatures in different ways. While both increased solar activity and increased greenhouse gases are expected to warm the troposphere, an increase in solar activity should warm the stratosphere while an increase in greenhouse gases should cool the stratosphere.[2] Observations show that temperatures in the stratosphere have been steady or cooling since 1979, when satellite measurements became available. Radiosonde (weather balloon) data from the pre-satellite era show cooling since 1958, though there is greater uncertainty in the early radiosonde record.[44]
Dec 16 09 10:02 am
JC, the “warmers have tried to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period” meme is a lie, the MWP is evident in all the global and NH temperature graphs used by “warmers” covering the last thousand years.
Do you think repeating the lie a few more times will make it true, or are you just working on the principle that if you throw enough mud some of it will stick?
Dec 16 09 11:36 am
You are in denial Andrew if you don’t think the climate change priesthood have not sought to “contain” the MWP.
And as for using wikipedia for a reference on anything to do with climate change – it is a waste if time because there is a little gnome who spends his life keeping anything to do with “climate change” ideologically pure. You just have to compare the IPCC report from 1991 with that of 2001 to see how successful they were.
Just check out what he has been up to today
Andrei´s last blog ..Al Gore surprises scientist
Dec 16 09 11:40 am
You can argue that with Dr David Deming’s statement to the Senate Committee’s Environment and Public Works of 12.6.2006 where he quoted from an email saying “We have to get rid of the MWP”.
The First and Second IPCC reports have the MWP but the 2001 scrubs it in favour of Mann’s Hockey Stick.
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
JC
Dec 16 09 12:35 pm
All of the graphs you point to have the MWP as about 0.2-0.3C warmer than the LIA, and they all show the late 20th century as being warmer than the MWP.
Dec 16 09 3:24 pm
I have to admit that I’d find Deming a lot more credible if he wasn’t himself such a staunchly political partisan individual.
His attacks on politically motivated supporters of AGW look like pot meet kettle.