Two academics in an atmospheric science department write a paper that has been accepted for publication in a journal. One of the authors is invited to write a guest post about the paper at a climate science blog that is run by fellow academics. Andrew Bolt reads the blog post and then writes his own blog post completely distorting the paper, the guest blog post and the rest of reality to suit his own agenda.
Here is what I would take as the central position underlying the reasoning in the paper and Kyle Swanson’s RealClimate post:
It first needs to be emphasized that natural variability and radiatively forced warming are not competing in some no-holds barred scientific smack down as explanations for the behavior of the global mean temperature over the past century. Both certainly played a role in the evolution of the temperature trajectory over the 20th century, and significant issues remain to be resolved about their relative importance. However, the salient point, one that is oftentimes not clear in arguments about variability in the climate system, is that all else being equal, climate variability and climate sensitivity are flip sides of the same coin.
…
It’s painfully easy to paint oneself logically into a corner by arguing that either (i) vigorous natural variability caused 20th century climate change, but the climate is insensitive to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases; or (ii) the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, but we still are able to attribute details of inter-decadal wiggles in the global mean temperature to a specific forcing cause.
…
What we find is that when interannual modes of variability in the climate system have what I’ll refer to as an “episode,” shifts in the multi-decadal global mean temperature trend appear to occur. I’ll leave the details of these episodes to interested readers (here and here), as things get pretty technical. It’s sufficient to note that we have an objective criteria for what defines an episode; we aren’t just eyeballing curves. The climate system appears to have had three distinct “episodes” during the 20th century (during the 1910’s, 1940’s, and 1970’s), and all three marked shifts in the trend of the global mean temperature, along with changes in the qualitative character of ENSO variability. We have also found similar types of shifts in a number of model simulations (both forced and unforced) that were run in support of the IPCC AR4 report.
Swanson then goes on to argue that a similar “episode” has occurred in the past decade or so, beginning with the effect of the 1997-1998 El Nino event, and leading through to a period now where the mean temperatures are returning to the long-term linear trend line.
Bolt also fails to include this statement in his quotations from the blog post:
What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.
And perhaps he didn’t bother to read the journal manuscript itself, or he would have found this concluding statement:
Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing.
…
Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies (c.f. Roe [2009]). If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle 2008].
In short, I don’t think that blog post and the paper it discusses mean what Andrew Bolt thinks they mean – and neither, it appears, does its author. But Bolt manages to create a mangled mess of cliches and distortions:
- he damns the “alarmist scientists” who run RealClimate;
- suggests that their publication of this post shows how “[t]here’s been an astonishing shift in the global warming debate”;
- states that the paper “tries to explain why temperatures have cooled since 2001″, despite the fact that the author explicitly notes that “we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming“;
- claims that the paper says “that [global warming] theory is actually questionable”, when the author explicitly notes that it says very little about global warming; and
- proposes that “we now face a prolongued period of no temperature rises instead, contrary, it says, to what leading climate models predicted”, when the author noted that the type of “episode” being observed now was found in IPCC model simulations.
He then goes on to the serious business of interpreting people’s mood, and the reason for that mood, a picture of four academics at a conference. And from there, his commenters are free to launch into their usual range of dodgy arguments and conspiracy rants – including the suggestion that it is global warming proponents who have manipulated language by adopting “climate change” in place of “global warming”. Perhaps someone should introduce them to Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist who in 2002 advised the Bush administration to make that linguistic adjustment:
The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says … The phrase “global warming” appeared frequently in President Bush’s speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced.
I would encourage you to take the time to read Swanson’s blog post, and even to read the original paper as it seems fairly accessible to a layperson. Unfortunately, it seems obvious that far too many of Bolt’s readers won’t follow those links and will instead rely on his misrepresentation of what Swanson has to say.
UPDATE: We might as well add into this thread the latest political posturing from Senator Steve Fielding, who uses a graph from 2001 to suggest that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global mean temperatures are not correlated and that global warming has halted. Fielding’s graph has been covered by Andrew Bolt, Graham Readfearn, and GrodsCorp.
32 Comments
Tobias, it’s probably also worth mentioning that Frank Luntz is a global warming convert.
Graham Readfearn hits the nail on the head regarding Fielding, who is a politician in love with his profile as the man with the crucial vote. That the future of Australia’s response to climate change rests with this religious clown is profoundly disturbing.
Thanks, Surname – I’d forgotten about that.
Agreed, monkeywrench – as evidenced by Senator Fielding’s latest media release, which Bolt helpfully publicises as UPDATE 3 on the RealClimate post.
Fielding is playing this all for media attention. He claims to take the “balanced view” yet has climate change denialists on call and isn’t willing, or able, to listen to anyone trying to explain to him otherwise. The temperature hasn’t gone up in fifteen years? Even Bolt says 7 (although it changes when it suits his purpose).
Fielding is using the most cherry-picked of cherry-picked data. It’s appalling.
@ John Surname: fielding is an embarrassment, but we can take heart that he won’t get re-elected next time around, or if he does probably won’t have the critical vote he does now. he reminds me of Brian Harradine.
So the earth has been cooling since
1998,2001,2002, 1995 and this somehow nullifies the previous 150 years? Interesting.confessions, I’m picking he’ll get the Liberal preferences next time. A double dissolution fought on the environment will see the end of him I believe, bring it on!
Bolt on Global Warming….in a nutshell
“The Far Left is wrong. The Centre Left are liars.”
Hey Confessions,
Have you read ‘A Letter to a Christian Nation’ a little book that educates us to the clout of the Conservative -Fundamentalist – Uneducated folk who have jobs – have never left their State (it’s about the USA if you haven’t worked that out yet) and we have a similar rump in Australia. I was terrified when I read that the KKK had infiltrated the Family First membership – so don’t write of the idiotic SF yet – there are a lot of Aussies who would approve of the KKK’s stated platform – was it to reduce migrant (read asylum seekers) intake.? These Australians, are conservative and fundamentalists. They are dangerous. JC
JC:
Good point on the KKK.
The US political system needs to cleanse itself of these KKK types like Robert Byrd the ranking Democrat from a southern state who used to be a KKK wizard.
@ jchercelf: comparing Fielding with the KKK is way off the mark. Christian fundamentalists like Fielding are dangerous people if they end up in positions like fielding has, where he can wield significant legislative power, but I don’t think that Fielding or FF are motivated by racist sentiment. Isn’t FF president an aboriginal woman?
Wow, tee, so The Left must all be klansmen! Thanks for pointing this out, now I will join the Liberals.
Oh, you might want to do your research. A basic check reveals he was no Grand Wizard, and was only a member for a year in his twenties. Hardly a seasoned cross burner. But facts don’t bother people like you.
Here’s something interesting – 100 authors against Einstien. Sound familiar?
Oh yea surname:
Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.[6]
According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, “You have a talent for leadership, Bob… The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation.” Byrd later recalled, “suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did.”[6] Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[6]
In 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:[9]
“ I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. ”
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
Don’t join the libs, as I’m not sure they’d want a KKK apologist in their ranks.
Remind me, he’s a democrat, right?
Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942.
Meh! love how the Right bring up democrat involvement in racism from fucking YEARS AGO! Nothing at all like the Republicans and their actively racist strategy to scare voters with the OMG! BLACK PEOPLE BOOGA BOOGA tactics from more recent years that continues to present day.
So he was member of the KKK for one year in the 40’s, well over 60 years ago. He was not a wizard, like you claimed. Pointing out the stone cold sober facts in the matter gets me labelled a “KKK apologist”. Bizarre. Are you suggesting that people are incapable of changing their political viewpoints? Is Andrew Bolt still a Labor voter then?
You also left out this part of the same article:
Which you ignored because it doesn’t fit your weak attempt at a “ALL THE LEFT ARE KKK APOLOGISTS GOTCHA!!11!”.
Are the KKK behind the global warming conspiracy as well? That must mean they’ve infiltrated Labor! Which must mean Kevin Rudd is the Grand Wizard of the KKK.
It’s not a big historical secret that the Democratic Party held the South electorally from the end of the American Civil War up until around the civil rights movement. California used to be a solid Republican state too, at one point. If you’d like, you could google up ‘Solid South’ and ‘Southern Strategy’.
And Byrd? He is literally ancient. He joined the Democratic Party when it still held the South, and has not left the party despite it’s shift towards a more liberal, progressive platform. He has apologised again and again for his participation in the KKK, and received a 100% pass mark from the NAACP for his voting record on race relations.
Of course you probably know all this, because it’s all on his Wikipedia page, the page you cherry-picked a quote from in order to ‘prove’ that Robert Byrd is some unrepentant racist, and that the modern Democratic Party willingly and happily accepts ‘Wizards’ of the KKK into their ranks.
And John Surname was right, Byrd was never a ‘Wizard’ of the KKK. He was officially an ‘Exalted Cyclops’, a fact included in the evidence you provided. You’re either trying to weasel your way out of a lie, obfuscate enough so that we forget about your earlier claims, or didn’t read your own source.
A post about the distortions used by Bolt suddenly jumps the rails because JC brings up the KKK and tee runs with it.
Question for the moderators – {We’re not publishing speculation about the identity of commenters, sorry – Toby}
and was only a member for a year in his twenties. Hardly a seasoned cross burner. But facts don’t bother people like you.
yea, who cares right, after all he was only in his mid 20’s and only hated “Negroes” after all.
Surname , that comment deserves the asshat of the week award. Lol
….the page you cherry-picked a quote from in order to ‘prove’ that Robert Byrd is some unrepentant racist, and that the modern Democratic Party willingly and happily accepts ‘Wizards’ of the KKK into their ranks.
Cherry picked? Do you even know what that means? Here’s the fact Byrd was a member of the red neck KKK and you don’t want to fess up.
Tee, just out of interest what are your thoughts on the Young Republicans electing as their national leader someone who thinks it’s funny to call black Americans coons?
The US democrats have disavowed their racist past on the other hand it seems the next generation of Republicans are more than happy to embrace racism.
No tee, here is what you said. Let’s go over your own words because you appear to have forgotten what you said.
tee: “The US political system needs to cleanse itself of these KKK types like Robert Byrd the ranking Democrat from a southern state who used to be a KKK wizard.”
Byrd is no longer a ‘KKK type’, has he has apologised again and again for his past misdeeds, and gained recognition from the NAACP for his voting record concerning racial issues. There was a time when Byrd could be considered a ‘KKK type’, however that time is now long gone.
Byrd was also never a ‘KKK wizard’, he was an ‘Exalted Cyclops’.
You are being considerably disingenuous, and picking only select quotes that support your own flimsy position, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary even if it comes from your own source.
Danny says:
Byrd was also never a ‘KKK wizard’, he was an ‘Exalted Cyclops’.
Understood… KKK Wizard/really bad, KKK Exalted/cyclops really good.
Good we got that to bed. LOL.
Joe says:
Tee, just out of interest what are your thoughts on the Young Republicans electing as their national leader someone who thinks it’s funny to call black Americans coons?
Haven’t followed that, Joe. Can you provide a respectable link to that please. If s/he did say that it’s bad, but I suppose we could also use the Robert Byrd defense here, which according to most of you, one can say what one likes but as long you apologize for offending people with racist comments/ actions such as joining the KKK, becoming an “exalted cyclops”, writing letter saying you would never go into the army and fight “alongside a negro” like Democrat Robert Byrd, then all is forgiven. Right?
However while on the subject of racism you ought to be talking about the current SCOTUS candidate that had her appeals court decision over turned because she was seen to be practicing reverse racism against whites.
The US democrats have disavowed their racist past on the other hand it seems the next generation of Republicans are more than happy to embrace racism.
Umm, not so fast says the SCOTUS decision against “the wise Latina woman”
Unlike you tee, I don’t put words into other people’s mouths.
You’ve been made to look foolish because your own sources contradict your assertions. You’ve been proved wrong on multiple, separate occasions in this thread and your current attempts at goal-post shifting are not fooling anybody.
Danny:
1. Byrd was a KKK veteran. tick
2. Byrd wrote letters suggesting he wouldn’t serve in the military next to a negro. tick.
3. Byrd was a Wizard.. Wrong. He was a Exalted Cyclops (was the correction).
I’m sorry, but unlike you I’m not familiar with the various ranking of senior positions in the KKK. If that makes you more comfortable I guess I’ll take that huge mistake in stride… Lol.
shorter tee: LOOK OVER THERE!!1! OMG!!1! UNICORNS.
this thread is about turning science into nonsense, not turning democrats into racists. What is it with the Right and failure to understand simple concepts?
tee you have a fundamental inability to even understand your own arguments, let alone engage with somebody else’s.
Here you go Tee.
my favourite part of the Young Republican leadership election though was that those voting had a choice between the racist Audra Shay or Rachael Hoff who had previously been convicted of voter fraud.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-15/inside-the-young-gops-civil-war
http://hiphoprepublican.com/general/2009/07/06/lenny-mcallister-speaks-out-on-young-republican-national-federation-controversy/
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2009/07/race_and_young_repubs.aspx
http://www.arktimes.com/assets/documents/audrashayfacebook.jpg
Audra Shay’s “excuse”: read comment 16 to see how pathetic her excuse really is.
http://hiphoprepublican.com/general/2009/07/02/racism-a-young-gop-candidates-facebook-page/
LOL @ tee.