Climate scientist sues newspaper for false reporting

Here is a press release I picked up last night:

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – April 21, 2010) – University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, launched a lawsuit today in BC Supreme Court against three writers at The National Post (and the newspaper as a whole), over a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.

In a statement released at the same time the suit was filed, Dr. Weaver said, I asked The National Post to do the right thing – to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused.”

Dr. Weaver’s statement of claim not only asks for a Court injunction requiring The National Post to remove all of the false allegations from its Internet websites, but also seeks an unprecedented Court order requiring the newspaper to assist Dr. Weaver in removing the defamatory National Post articles from the many other Internet sites where they have been re-posted.

“If I sit back and do nothing to clear my name, these libels will stay on the Internet forever. They’ll poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming,” said Weaver.

The suit names Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, columnist Peter Foster, reporter Kevin Libin and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as several still-unidentified editors and copy editors. It seeks general, aggravated damages, special and exemplary damages and legal costs in relation to articles by Foster on December 9, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web”), Corcoran on December 10, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web II”) and January 27, 2010 (“Climate Agency going up in flames”), and Libin on February 2, 2010 (“So much for pure science”).

The Statement of Claim was filed April 20, 2010 at the BC Supreme Court Registry at the Vancouver Courthouse: Weaver v Corcoran and others, SCBC No.102698, Vancouver Registry.

via Climate Scientist Sues National Post for Libel.

The 48 page statment of claim is available to download (Weaver vs Corcoran.pdf).

Do I detect a trend? Could Ian Wishart and Richard Treadgold be legally forced to track down and remove defamatory reports internationally arising our of Treadgold’s discredited “paper” Are we getting warm yet? (see New Zealand’s denier-gate)?

See also:
News from the front: scientists directly challenge claims of fraud through defamation/libel laws
Climate change deniers wallets threatened

Permalink

Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

38 responses to “Climate scientist sues newspaper for false reporting

  1. I think this is a move long overdue. If publications won’t do the necessary background work to get corroborating evidence, then it’s time to use punitive legal means to force their hand. This slander of good scientists who do valuable work has got to stop.

    Like

  2. This slander of good scientists who do valuable work has got to stop.

    Oh so now they’re “good scientists”?
    Victims of slander?
    My oh my!
    Why the sudden change in terminology, hmm?

    Remember this huge dollop of totally unsupported stupidity?

    “…climate change is a fact, global warming is a fact, man’s contribution to global warming is a fact, but climate change driven by man is not”

    and…

    …those that hold the final claim where the data indicates some correlation but not direct causation – that man-made activities drive climate change – are the only reasonable sceptics on the climate scene.

    and…

    …many are leery of being seen joining the fervent believers that think climate change can be controlled by human activity. (…) These believers are in for a surprise.

    “Believers!”
    Yep. There you go. Taken from page one of the denialist manual.
    Disgusting.

    Ken made it clear when he called you on this:
    tildeb – you ignore my request for clarification.
    I want you to tell us who these “believers” are. You seem to be tarring scientists with that label – which is very inappropriate.

    So how about it? Come clean.
    Is the global scientific community a bunch of “good scientists” or are they just “believers”.

    You don’t want to be labeled a denier because they are all batshit crazy? Good.

    Then STOP ACTING LIKE ONE and follow the science.
    😦
    Stop being part of the problem.
    Otherwise you’re just a denier who’s fiddling around with the goal-posts.
    Same dog, different fleas.

    Like

  3. No, Cedric, I am not part of the problem just because you believe I am part of the problem. I am honest. The cautionary point I offer is simply this: do not believe that by controlling greenhouse gas emissions we can control climate change. We can reduce our effect on climate change and the rate at which it happens by reducing our contribution to global warming but climate change is going to continue even if humanity ceases to exist. You seem to not only ignore this rather salient and legitimate point but label it as denialist and therefore just another version of batshit crazy.

    I think this goal of reducing our effect on climate change can be achieved making our emissions environmentally sustainable (neutral). This, too, is a legitimate argument and hotly disputed. Be that as it may, the only issue I deny, then, is one of control, not effect. And my denial is conditional on having convincing causal evidence to the contrary. Because I don’t think that causal evidence is overwhelming (perhaps yet) means I think my skepticism of the causal claim of control is currently justified. Those who ignore this lack of causal evidence but continue to think that we can control climate change by controlling greenhouse gas emissions are the people I call believers. That’s a truth claim that I think is informed more by faith than fact.

    I know you take great issue with these points for what you think are scientifically sound reasons and you may turn out to be right. But to cast me as part of the problem of global warming denialist is ludicrous and to associate all the personal attacks against me for holding this opinion is just juvenile bully tactics. I know you think the science supports you and I know you can find a general consensus in the scientific community that suggests we really do control climate change by our emissions, but I think that causal evidence is still weak. I think this opinion of causal control is premature and seems to me to be based as much on bias of our importance as a species to all things everywhere as it is any hard and convincing causal data. And, believe it or not, I am allowed to have that opinion in spite of your opinion to the contrary without being a member in what you think is only one of two camps: believer or denier. THAT’S batshit crazy, Cedric. There is a large middle ground here where skepticism about control is legitimate. Unlike you, however, I take full responsibility for my opinion being my own – which can change if I see convincing causal data to the contrary, by the way, and have the reasons for my current skepticism addressed; you have the arrogance to believe that your opinion in this matter IS purebred science and the only RIGHT opinion to have, ignoring and belittling legitimate skepticism about control. And the simple thought test to identify this bias is whether or not climate change will always be at play even if humanity was dead and gone. If you think it will, then our contribution is just that and not the control input. If you think climate will become stable subject to (relatively) minor fluctuations without human input, then I think that identifies you as a ‘believer’, one who mistakenly thinks this truth claim is informed by science when the geological evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

    And that is as ‘clean’ as I am ever going to be.

    Like

  4. …but climate change is going to continue even if humanity ceases to exist.

    Damn but that’s stupid.

    Climate changes.
    Tides move.
    The Earth turns.
    The wind changes direction.
    A wolf howls in the night.
    All without human intervention.
    Wow.

    Bravo. You have figured out this deep thought all by yourself.

    (insert slow hand clap here)

    Ladies and gentlemen, tildeb.
    Special subject: The Bleeding Obvious.

    Those who ignore this lack of causal evidence but continue to think that we can control climate change by controlling greenhouse gas emissions are the people I call believers. That’s a truth claim that I think is informed more by faith than fact.

    And they are?
    Name names.
    Spell it out.
    Which scientific communities are the “believers”?
    Is NASA a group of “believers” perhaps?
    Why not call NASA a “cult” while you’re at it too?

    I know you think the science supports you and I know you can find a general consensus in the scientific community that suggests we really do control climate change by our emissions…

    Damn straight. There is a general scientific consensus.
    It’s reasonable and sane to accept that scientific consensus considering the work that has been done to achieve it.

    …but I think that causal evidence is still weak.

    Which makes you different from a denier exactly…how?
    The deniers don’t accept the scientific consensus either.
    They still find the evidence “weak” too.

    They are happy to label scientists “believers” too. What makes you throwing around the “believer” label any different?

    Why is it that you hold onto an opinion that you cannot substantiate with any supporting evidence whatsoever…exactly like a run-of-the-mill denier?

    Like

  5. Well Cedric, you certainly are dependable. And no, it is not stupid but central to my point, you dolt.

    If someone were to suggest that tides were, in fact, controlled by human activity,
    if someone were to suggest that the rotational orbit of the earth was, in fact, controlled by human activity, if someone were to suggest that wind was controlled by human activity, if someone were to suggest that the howling of a wolf was controlled by human activity, then we’d have a problem of a lack of evidence to support these claims. But when people suggest that climate change is controlled by human activity, all of a sudden someone who points out the “bleeding obvious” is seen as being exactly like a run-of-the-mill denier.

    That’s brilliant Cedric. No. Really. Simply brilliant and an especially keen observation by suggesting that it’s really all the same thing when it’s not. And from arguments like yours comes the sense that maybe the consensus arrived at by climate scientists may be an overstatement. But the truth is that that scientific consensus is about human activity and global warming, not human activity to controlling climate. By shooting off your mouth as you do to someone who suggests we be more careful with our language, you shoot all of us in the foot. And, surprisingly, I don’t think that’s such a brilliant strategy.

    We are not the drivers controlling climate change. Very glad to hear you finally agree with this after reading so much verbal abuse from you, but you show your agreement in a very strange way: by ridicule. How very mature of you.

    And it is the job of those who claim that we are, in fact and deed, the drivers of climate change to establish cause and effect and reveal the mechanism that predictably links the two with evidence that works all the time, here and there, today and tomorrow. It is not the skeptic’s job, as you know perfectly well and have argued here on OP, to provide evidence why that predictive evidence is weak, meaning unreliable.

    Once again for those who, like you, tend to overlook what’s bleeding obvious, anyone who suggests that human activity controls rather contributes to climate change is making a faith statement. I call these people ‘believers” and they are rampant in the wider community. I know because I deal with them all the time. Those within the climate sciences are usually far more circumspect linking human activity to global warming and global warming to affecting the rate and scope of climate change. That’s good science reporting. I am pointing out that this linkage is very important and needs to be clarified to the general public because there really is a widespread misconception that ‘science’ is telling us that we can control climate change by reducing emissions. We have no right to stand by and allow anyone to jump to this unjustified conclusion as so many in the general public have done. The assumption I come across daily is that by addressing human activity and reducing greenhouse gas emission we (meaning scientists) can somehow magically control climate change. Although the point may be too subtle for you to appreciate – it being so bleeding obvious and all to the brilliant among us like yourself – it is upon this point that so much global warming denial is based. The only question we should focus on is: Can we conclusively link increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to global warming by means of our emissions? I think a strong case for this can be made.

    Extreme climate change from global warming is the Hollywood version and is NOT the real issue. It’s a diversion (which may or may not be true). Let’s stick with what we know and respect those like Dr. Weaver who do so.

    Like

  6. BTW, who says climate change is cause by human activity? Type it into Google and find out for yourself: 59, 200 references for just that one phrase.

    Like

  7. But when people suggest that climate change is controlled by human activity, all of a sudden someone who points out the “bleeding obvious” is seen as being exactly like a run-of-the-mill denier.

    Yes. Exactly.
    You are just repeating a denialist PRATT.

    There’s the “Climate is always changing.” PRATT.
    And then there’s the “Humans are too insignificant” PRATT.

    But when people suggest…

    What people? Name names.
    Why is this so terribly hard for you.
    Who are these mysterious “people”?

    But the truth is that that scientific consensus is about human activity and global warming, not human activity to controlling climate.

    Name names.
    Why is this so hard for you?
    You couldn’t do it before and you don’t seem to want to do it now.
    Name names.
    What scientific community is declaring that human activity is “controlling climate” as opposed to changing the climate by dumping CO2 into the atmosphere thereby causing global warming?
    Spit it out.
    Who are these “believers” that fly in the face of the “good scientists”?

    Those within the climate sciences are usually far more circumspect linking human activity to global warming and global warming to affecting the rate and scope of climate change.

    You have no idea what you are talking about.
    The link between human activity and global warming is strongly and openly accepted by every single scientific community on the planet.
    You have nothing.

    Put up or shut up.
    Which scientific communities are the “believers”?
    Is NASA a group of “believers” perhaps?
    Or perhaps is NASA a “cult”?

    Like

  8. Type it into Google and find out for yourself: 59, 200 references for just that one phrase.

    This is really really hard for you, yeah?
    Name names.
    Don’t wriggle and squirm like a coward.

    What scientific communities are the “believers”?
    NASA perhaps?
    Are they not “good scientists”?

    Like

  9. The message is clear and undebateable: climate change is real, and unavoidable – and unless drastic cuts are made to GHG emissions between now and 2050, the consequences will be dire for the next 1000 years.
    (…)
    Changes in the amount of solar energy received over time have historically driven the equilibrium between temperature and CO2, and the resulting climate and ecologies. The industrial hockey-stick that we are currently living in breaks this pattern: CO2 levels are for the first time in 650,000 years preceeding temperature change, rising independent of insolation, driven not by geology or orbital dynamics, but power generation, combustion engines, and industry.
    (…)
    Denialist’s win not by discrediting climate change, but by creating the perception in the public mind that the reality of climate change is still a topic of scientific debate. While this is no longer the case among the scientific community (who’s belief in climate change, as consolidated by the IPCC, is unanimous), entrenched political interests have no difficulty finding experts of questionable credibility willing to speak publically to their political agendas.
    (…)
    If CO2 levels can be reduced by 60 – 90% before 2050, massive climate change can be averted. If not, we are entering 2000 years of pain – average global temperature increase of 8 degrees or more, the melting of the greenland icecap (raising sea levels by 6-7m), carbon saturation and acidification of the oceans, and an extended litany of horrors.

    Guess who?

    Like

  10. Richard Christie

    We are not the drivers controlling climate change. – tilbeb

    I think that’s an absurd position. It makes the fundamental error of assuming climate change is driven by either uncontrollable natural factors or by anthropogenic factors. That it is either/or situation.

    But the science tells us that currently both are causing change.

    There is no reason why we can’t reduce the anthropogenic side of the equations and mitigate, or remove, the effects that are due to those drivers. Of course climate will continue change when AWG drivers are removed but not in a manner that has anything to do with human activity.

    Like

  11. You have no idea what you are talking about.
    The link between human activity and global warming is strongly and openly accepted by every single scientific community on the planet.
    You have nothing.

    Why do you blather so? Have I not written repeatedly that the link IS between human activity and global warming and that we should be careful with our language to keep to this point? Yet here you are, Cedric, vitriolic as ever, pretending otherwise, insinuating otherwise, concluding otherwise, spewing otherwise… believing otherwise.

    Who are these believers? Anyone who thinks climate change is controlled by human activity. Let me repeat that: anyone who thinks climate change is controlled rather than affected by human activity. I don’t care what ‘community’ these folk may be a part of, nor what nationality, race, gender, sexual preference, or political leanings each one favours. That subtle point I make about accuracy of terminology is important Cedric. That’s neither PRATT nor is it an excuse as you imply for me to ignore and dismiss anything that influences climate change to mean the same thing, although no one can divert you from making whatever conclusions you believes are true regardless of what is written.

    Who believes climate change is caused by human activity? Well, quite a few including the national science academies of the G8+5 nations who issued issued this joint statement:

    “Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change”.

    The belief that global warming and climate change are interchangeable is so widespread that I think it is important for all us to clarify what is meant: we need to do something about that portion of climate change that we can attribute to global warming that is, in turn, attributed to human activity. Why you think this is denialist PRATT is truly bizarre. We need to stick to the science and build a better case for our intervention with emission standards because far too many people think the science is faulty due in large part to this switch in terms.

    Based on 800 telephone interviews conducted in Australia in late September, the survey found that climate change is much higher on the agenda in Australia than the US. Strong majorities of the Australian public concur that (a) the planet is warming (83%); (b) climate change is caused by human activity (67%); and (c) Australia should take actions to reduce its production of greenhouse gas emissions even if this costs jobs and reduces living standards (59%). (http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?newsID=7020)

    So when you pretend that I am unable to put up, you know perfectly well that too often the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used interchangeably when they actually and accurately mean very different things. It’s pretty ironic to me that you have no problem with such loose terminology from others as if it matters not (when the science is very specific about global warming) but assume it’s my job to expose each and every one who abuses the terms or my point is batshit crazy and cowardly. That’s simply unreasonable on your part and your diatribe is beginning to sound hysterical.

    As for the libel, I don’t care how extreme Weaver’s climatic predictions are: if you are reputable publication, you don’t pull a Cedric and attribute all kinds of negative connotations and character slights and meaning to words that were never spoken. That’s called libel. If you want to argue the conclusions or data interpretations and predictions or whatever, that’s fine, but that’s not what the Post’s commentators have done.

    Like

  12. Richard, There is no reason why we can’t reduce the anthropogenic side of the equations and mitigate, or remove, the effects that are due to those drivers IS my point. Don’t believe Cedric who paints my position falsely (he’s very good at that, being both persistent and consistent). I do not think that climate change is driven by either uncontrollable natural factors or by anthropogenic factors. Never have, never will. Global warming is driven by anthropogenic factors and it is important we keep to that accurate script in our fight to control emissions because that is where the science is.

    Like

  13. Tilden, I think you are being disingeious with your definitions here. We are pretty sure human inpus have been mainly responsible for warming over recent years. Bit I think we are also pretty convinced human inputs (pollution, particulates) were responsible, at least partly, for cooling after WWII.

    So it is perfectly correct to say we have an input into today’s climate change and to use the term climate change rather than global warming (too restrictive).

    There should be no reason or room to make an issue if this and drag in terms like “believer”. This is the sort of confusion that theologians do purposely to confuse arguments. It amounts to jelly wrestling.

    Sent from my iPod

    Like

  14. Richard Christie

    Tildeb.

    I find your position difficult to fathom. You seem to object to this statement: “climate change is driven by anthropogenic factors”.

    Yet you agree that anthropogenic factors cause the climate to change.

    I note that the first statement doesn’t say “solely driven by”.
    I also note that global warming is a manifestation of a change in climate, as is global cooling.

    As Ken implies, it all appears to be a semantic herring.

    Like

  15. Ken and Richard: if the semantics were not important I wouldn’t be flogging it. Because we open ourselves to legitimate criticism about humans causing climate change, we make our case more difficult to prove than it needs to be. If one understands climate change to be like a sine wave with naturally occurring peaks and valleys, then the effect of global warming caused by human activities is like adding more to the peaks and make the valleys more shallow. But when one substitutes climate change in place of global warming, then one is trying to argue that the sine wave is largely caused or directed or controlled by human activities. This allows those who disagree with the human affect a wide range of criticism about climate change itself rather than focusing the issue squarely at how human activity increases the fluctuations. Regarding temperature, for example, it is easier to show the science how mean temperature are rising in a positive direction at both the peak and valley creating an upward trend. This trend, even if lower than predicted or with the occasional negative variation , still packs a wallop as evidence of rising global temperatures that can be linked to rising CO2 levels. But when we allow the issue to be about rising temperatures versus climate change, we allow for more uncertainty about human activity that obviously did not cause warming trends due to CO2 from half a billion years ago. And we see the opposition using this kind of argument all the time.

    What is lost in this comparison is the portion of change we can attribute to human activity in the past two hundred years with strong data support even if average temperatures were higher OR lower. It’s the range and depth that has considerably increased compared to a half billion years ago as well as a clear rising trend that can be convincing in the last two hundred years, whereas simply focusing on gross climate change and temperature (to take but one example) opens up the debate to unnecessary calls for causal evidence to link human activity to climate change many millennium old rather than current human activity to global warming.

    I realize the distinction seems small because human activity that leads to global warming affects climate and promotes more rapid change. But proving that climate link to be causal is a much harder proposition than linking human activity to recent global warming.

    In a nutshell, we do ourselves and our cause a disservice by allowing those opposed to anthropogenic global warming to choose the field of battle to be about anthropogenic climate change where the causal evidence is much weaker. My ‘jello wrestling’ point is to stay focused on our own battleground where the causal case is much stronger.

    But, surprisingly, some of the biggest critics of this approach are those environmentalists who want the issue to be about climate change. I realize it’s sexier for the media that the world will end by us slow roasting ourselves to death, that atmospheric tipping points will result in instant glaciation and a change in ocean currents, and so on. And all this may happen but our task is to stay on message and not allow the plausibility of our imaginations of worst case scenarios to become the escape hatch needed for decision makers to avoid their responsibility to deal with the established causal link between global warming and human activity today. Also, I think a case that can show Syracuse and Sydney to both be adversely warmer next decade than this, and a case to show that the farms of Canterbury and Connecticut will continue to have seasonally warmer weather and more adverse soil moisture affecting their farms, are exactly the kinds of local climate changes people can understand. We can link these adverse changes to emissions. This is the kind of climate change that I think can unite urban and rural populations of all countries to want to make incremental and meaningful changes by reducing emissions that adversely affect each one of us. But people are not going to support wholesale lifestyle changes and higher taxes on fuels based on some argument about ice core data and tree rings.

    So, yes, it’s semantics. And I’m sure that using the the language of believers and deniers does not help the cause, either. Its a timely reminder for me to refrain from that diversion, too. So I apologize if my argument seems trivial to you but, from where I’m sitting, it is an important issue that sells locally.

    Like

  16. Pure gobbledygook.
    Jello wrestling.

    Who are these believers? Anyone who thinks climate change is controlled by human activity.

    Stop it.
    This is infantile behaviour.
    Enough with your rediculous “google searches” and your handwaving about “anyone”.
    Name names.
    Why is this so hard for you?

    I don’t care what ‘community’ these folk may be a part of, nor what nationality, race, gender, sexual preference, or political leanings each one favours.

    I don’t care about any mysterious “folk”.
    Nor their gender, race or whatnot.

    What scientific community on the planet believes that climate change is CONTROLLED by human activity?
    Who are these “believers”?

    Based on 800 telephone interviews…

    Take those telephone interviews and shove ’em up your backside.
    I don’t get my science from “telephone interviews”.

    Who believes climate change is caused by human activity? Well, quite a few including the national science academies of the G8+5 nations who issued issued this joint statement…

    There’s nothing wrong with that statement.
    Look at it closely…

    It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change.

    Yep. Sounds good. No scientific community on the planet disagrees with it.
    Do you want to go on record and say that you disagree with it?

    (…awkward silence…)

    Stop your wriggling.
    It won’t help you.
    What scientific community “believes” that climate is controlled as opposed to being affected by human activity?

    You are the one who mentioned the “believers”.
    Who are they?
    Name names.

    …we need to do something about that portion of climate change that we can attribute to global warming that is, in turn, attributed to human activity. Why you think this is denialist PRATT is truly bizarre.

    I don’t. Why are you being deliberately thick?
    You are the one throwing around denialist terminology, not me.

    Who are the “believers” as opposed to the “good scientists”?
    NASA?

    Say what you mean and mean what you say.
    Grow a pair.

    Like

  17. And I’m sure that using the the language of believers and deniers does not help the cause, either.

    “Believers” is a very…effective word.
    That’s why you and your friends at the denialist site Whatsupmybutt use it.

    A believer is somebody who holds a view on faith as opposed to reason and evidence.
    Like a cultist.
    Yet scientists are not cultists.
    They are not “believers”.

    When you were asked by Ken and myself to explain who you meant by “believers” you were deliberately coy.
    You evaded like crazy.
    That’s because your position is untenable.
    You can’t name names because…you don’t have any.

    Climate change deniers used religiously loaded terminology all the time to insinuate that those that support the global scientific community’s position on climate change are just religious fanatics.

    You yourself have played this deceitful word game on many occasions.
    Remember these gems?

    “…mantra of the AGW supporters…”
    “…not welcomed in this church
    “…One True Church of AGW…
    Hallelujah! Another saved soul from the dark clutches of the DENIALISTS…”
    “…already left the Church of Science.”
    Link

    Quite a collection. It’s all yours.
    😦

    You do this because you are a climate denier.
    A slimy one that pretends to be more sciencey than the scientists themselves.
    A denier of the “concern troll” variety with ever-so-solicitous concern for “real science”.

    Climate deniers are alway ready to take a quick pot shot at the scientific consensus on global warming.
    Just like you do when you think you can get away with it.
    Remember this?

    …anyone who disagrees with the ‘consensus’ has already left the Church of Science.

    Yep. Gotta love those scare quotes.
    Handy things, them scare quotes.

    …and deniers does not help the cause, either.

    No, that won’t do. There really and truely are deniers.
    People who will shove their fingers in their ears and just scream “LALALALALALALA” when presented with the science.
    There are really and truely HIV Deniers.
    And Evolution Deniers.
    And Germ Theory Deniers.
    And Heliocentric Deneirs.
    And Climate Deniers.

    They exist.
    Deniers is the only appropriate word for them.
    An actual skeptic is a different creature entirely.

    Deniers stoked Climategate for as long as they dared. A moronic and (sadly) wildly successful campaign to smear the scientific community and accuse them of cooking the books and being shifty and untrustworthy.
    Maligning scientists and painting them as being dishonest.
    Exactly the sort of thing that Weaver is angry about.
    Exactly the sort of thing that YOU gleefully aided and abetted…
    Remember this?

    …There is little doubt that the computer model’s global temperature data was fudged to achieve a specific preconceived goal… exactly what one does not want in reputable science. And this would also go a long way to explain why Mann & Co are so reticent to reveal their full data set.
    (…)
    These e-mails are not unfounded slanderous allegations: they reveal intentional – even if understandable – falsification of the data set.

    Link
    One can almost picture you piously wringing your hands in concern at their “understandable” falsification”.

    If only the scientists did “real science” and were not just “believers”. Oh dear. Oh my. Tut tut.
    (…insert wringing of hands here…)

    With “friends” like you, the scientific community doen’t need enemies.

    Then, months later, you have the brass to show up and innocently say “This slander of good scientists who do valuable work has got to stop.”

    You are disgusting.
    A nasty, grotty piece of work.
    A hypocritical dick of the first water.
    Get a life.

    Like

  18. Well, here’s what I wrote in response to Ken’s post about deniers:

    I wanted to mention a trend that is quite disturbing : there is an increase in the use of negative stereotypical language responding to criticism of the (slightly) doctored GW data sets that powers climate models. It reminds me strongly of how those who criticize atheism use similar language to denigrate those who do not share an unjustified belief – labels like strident, militant, arrogant, and so on. To point out the legitimate difference between climate model predictions and hard real-world evidence does not make someone a denier, nor a head-in-the-sand creationist, nor any other pejorative term so easily flung in a critic’s direction: it makes someone a skeptic in the legitimacy of the climate models, and rightly so from a scientific standpoint.

    When well-intentioned people link global warming to be the main engine that drives climate change, then we’ve left the realm of scientific theory and entered the domain of hypothesis/belief. It may even be true. But for those who support this belief to call those that question the validity of its premature conclusion ‘deniers’ and paint their motivation to be similar to those that promote anti-evolutionism seems to me to have the sticky side of the label exactly backwards.

    And you, Cedric, are an excellent example of what I’m talking about.

    Like

  19. Well, here’s what I wrote in response…

    Nobody cares.
    You are not fooling anybody with your concern trolling.

    You link to Wattsupmybutt as source material.
    The one stop shopping centre for denialists everywhere.
    The primary source of the “deep down dumb”.

    You give a bought-and-paid for corrupt “scientist” like Linzen the time of day.
    A name that is trotted out ritually by deniers because they don’t have anybody better.

    You spread PRATTS about climate models, knowing full well that the scientific community regards such models as valuable tools in our understanding of the Earths climate.
    Standard boilerplate denialist PRATTS.

    You denigrate scientists and their work.
    Standard fare for a denialist.

    You pepper your language with religious references to paint the science of AGW as a bunch of “believers”.
    Once again, we have all seen this before from the batshit crazy community.

    Yet you can’t name names. When asked point-blank what scientific community are the “believers”, you either
    1) fall silent
    or
    2) throw dust in the air about google searches and reports on telephone interviews of all things!

    You are disgusting.
    A nasty, grotty piece of work.
    A hypocritical dick of the first water.
    Get a life.

    Like

  20. Cedric, you really must go back on your meds. I don’t think a hug is going to do it anymore.

    Like

  21. Jesus Christ Cedric. Calm down man.

    Like

  22. In internet jargon, there is the English term “concern troll”. A troll is someone who disrupts discussions by provoking others. Through excessive, improper, aggressive or irrational behavior, the troll attempts to drive the discussion off the rails and cast doubt on accepted ideas. The “concern troll,” which I occasionally translate as Betroffenheitstroll, is a special variant. He acts as if he accepts the group consensus but places it indirectly in doubt by pretending to find problems in what he claims to be his own position, creating reasons why one should worry that the consensus is false. In truth, the concern troll does not agree with the consensus, but he tries to hide that.

    The concern troll is also found in the climate debate among people who show up saying that they themselves believe in global warming and also believe that human emissions of greenhouse gases are to blame, but do not understand certain things. And then, by and by, the classic objections of the denialist scene emerge one after another. It is difficult to ascertain the motives of others on the Internet because they have to be inferred indirectly. Thus, it can be difficult circumstances to separate a real skeptic who wants to deal with a few issues from the “concern troll”. A true skeptic will be satisfied with answers, a “concern troll” never. It can be irritating for the casual reader when an experienced person recognizes and attacks a “concern troll” after one or two comments, because in the opinion of the naive reader the “concern troll” had justified doubts that one should have dealt with politely. The polite answer, of course, ultimately wastes time that could be spent more productively and that thievery is a concern troll goal.

    There are several varieties of internet “concern trolls” as in any public debate. It can be scientists who ostensibly want to promote scientific inquiry by questioning existing results. If, however, all they do is ask questions without ever producing any results, leaving only unfinished projects, one is probably watching a “concern troll” at work, one whose only concerned is insuring that no conclusion is ever reached. McIntyre and his blog Climate Audit are fine examples of this, where as self-appointed “Auditor”, he only seeks to discover errors in climate research. Naturally, in almost all cases he only finds fault in the IPCC and research that points to global warming being due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. And, of course, all the faults he finds are ultimately rebuttable or details which have no effect on the results. His discovery, together with McKitrick, of errors in the temperature reconstructions of Mann et al 1998, for example did not change the so-called hockey stick shape of the global temperature curve for the last 1000 or 2000 years, as has been confirmed by all subsequent research. Further, an error in the United States temperature records reconstructed by NOAA and GISS, were totally irrelevant to the global temperature curve and did not alter the relative order of years for U.S. mean annual temperature. While McIntrye and his blog have produced a big zero of meaningful results his annoying and persistent requests for information have cost those he pursues considerable time. No wonder that some of the targeted, such as the Climate Research Unit, regarded the requests for information as a sabotage attempt and talked about how they could defend themselves against McIntyre and others of his ilk who are using requests for information as ammunition for further attacks.

    As word about such discussions burst onto the public scene in the stolen CRU emails, they provided other concern trolls the opportunity to complain about the politicization of scientists, as if this was produced not by the attacks on the science, but by the scientists who were under attack.
    Link

    Like

  23. Dianne's mum.

    Wow, thats a pretty rude exchange.
    I have some questions if I may indulge the group.

    Isnt soot a greater pollutant than CO2?
    Hasnt the world warmed only .6 degrees in the last 100 years?
    Isnt Urban Heat Island effect a valid concern when looking at temp measuring site readings?
    Doesnt the averaging effect of modelling (use monthly data instead of daily)and creating grids and blocks of data cause inconsistancy and inaccuracy in the “models”?
    Is it true that CO2 concentration has ceased increasing?
    Why does the IPCC scientists exclude the effect of clouds when looking at the effect of CO2 and “forcings”?
    Did the Medieval Warm Period happen?
    Is the earth going through a cooling phase?

    Genuinely I am curious at the answers.

    Like

  24. Dianne's mum.

    Oh and my wife is Jewish. Anyone calls me a Holocaust denier and I’ll report you to the Human Rights Commission for hate speech.

    Like

  25. David, Some replies to your questions:

    Isnt soot a greater pollutant than CO2? Soot can have an effect on the albedo. It may accelerate ice melting. But it is not a greehouse gas. CO2 proves to be the major contributor to current warming. I think polluter as a term is not really appropriate on this context.

    Hasnt the world warmed only .6 degrees in the last 100 years? Something like that globally. Probably a bit more. The regional increases can be larger (eg at the poles)

    Isnt Urban Heat Island effect a valid concern when looking at temp measuring site readings? Yes, it had been investigated and is one reason why some sites are not included. Climate scientists are specialists in their field. They are aware of these sorts of problems and have developed procedures for handling them.

    Doesnt the averaging effect of modelling (use monthly data instead of daily)and creating grids and blocks of data cause inconsistancy and inaccuracy in the “models”? Models always have limitations which users must be aware of, they are obviously used with limitations and restrictions in mind. Hansen has placed the importance of evidence from models on climate change third after paleovlimate evidence and ongoing instrumental measurements.

    Is it true that CO2 concentration has ceased increasing? No. And the human contribution to the increase is about 10,000 times natural contributions.

    Why does the IPCC scientists exclude the effect of clouds when looking at the effect of CO2 and “forcings”? Clouds is one area where knowledge is still limited. Work is ongoing and I understand a new satellite system is helping. Understandably the ICPP is very conservative and must identify such gaps in our knowledge. So far it is thought that clouds can have both positive and negative effects. You must remember that our knowledge in this area, while increasing all the time, inevitably has areas of weakness. The IPCC is of course well aware of this and treats it accordingly. That’s the nature if science – it’s not a dogma.

    Did the Medieval Warm Period happen? Seems so, but restricted to regions. At least this is what paleoclimate evidence us telling us. The best evidence indicates that current temperatures are greater than they have been over about 1000 years, probably more. Of course determing temperatures from long ago is difficult, proxies must be used and there are problems with sample numbers the further we go back.

    Is the earth going through a cooling phase? Probably not, although one would have to record data over many years to get any statistically significant assessment, We can look back to the past and identify cooling periods(eg after WWII) but would not have been able to make that assessment in one year at the time.

    Genuinely I am curious at the answers.

    Hope this has helped. Don’t understand your reference to the holocaust, though. Seems irrelevant to climate science. Sent from my iPod

    Like

  26. “Did the Medieval Warm Period happen? Seems so, but restricted to regions. At least this is what paleoclimate evidence us telling us”

    Vikings settled in Greenland.
    Grapes grown in Scotland
    Villages on high moorland in England.

    Evidence in Southern Hemispere is limited, but does exist.

    Like

  27. David – there is also evidence of no warming during that period for some regions.

    So currently, that is the best assessment. It was a regional event. And your historical statements actually just endorses that. There is nothing there to contradict current assessments based on a range of converging evidences.

    Why bother, anyway?

    Like

  28. Vikings settled in Greenland.
    And Greenland is a…region.
    Not the planet.

    Grapes grown in Scotland.
    And Scotland is a…region.
    Not the planet.

    Villages on high moorland in England.
    England? You mean that piece of real estate that shares a border with…Scotland?
    Yep, England is a…region.
    Not the planet.

    Even if you add Greenland ( a region) and Scotland ( a region) and England (a region) all together, you end up with evidence for the MWP in…Greenland, Scotland and England.
    (That’s three…regions)

    Yet that doesn’t even come close to demonstrating that the MWP was global.

    Scotland is tiny.
    England is tiny.
    Greenland is bigger but it’s still pretty small.
    Add them all together and you don’t get a sizable number of data points to demonstrate a global MWP.
    Only a regional one.

    Heck, throw in the whole of the North American continent and it still wouldn’t be enough data points.
    Look at a globe.
    Check out the scale. Wouldn’t work.
    Regional temperatures vs global temperatures.
    Crunch the numbers.
    Spot the difference.

    Evidence in Southern Hemispere is limited…

    You surprise me.
    Not.
    That’s why you don’t give any specifics, right? It’s on than level of “limitedness’.
    Hmm.

    Here’s the problem.
    What good would it do if even it was demonstrated tomorrow that the MWP was global?
    How would that change anything about the observations made NOW about global warming?
    Think about it.
    How does it get us off the hook?

    The climate changes.
    Yeah….ok.
    It changed in the past.
    Yeah….ok.
    So?

    Do you really think this is somehow a big, super-duper revelation?
    That geologists and paleontologists and glaciologsts and oceanographers and atmospheric scientists and climatologists didn’t know that already?
    Wow.

    The whole Medieval Warm Period meme is old.
    Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

    Every few weeks, some clueless rube will bless us with this cut-and-paste talking point that they’ve managed to discover from blog from somewhere.
    It’s the silver bullet that just turns all of the Earth sciences on it’s head.
    Or not.
    It NEVER ONCE EVER occurs to these people that maybe, just maybe that they should do a little digging first and find out more about the MWP meme rather than just mindlessly repeating it.
    😦
    A little research maybe.
    A quick look at a science web-site or something.
    NASA perhaps.
    Or the AGU.
    Or the Royal Society.
    But oh no.
    It’s just so much easier to repeat the PRATT.
    Endless, endless PRATTS as far as the eye can see.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    (…Deep breath…)
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Repeat, regurgitate, re-cycle, rinse and repeat.
    Ad Nauseum. Etc, etc , etc


    Info on the Medieval Warm Period

    Like

  29. Cedric,
    You really are in fine form!

    Actually, my info on England was based on me actually visiting a real medieval village. You know, stones and stuff?

    It is in a place where cultivation of crops would be impossible now.

    We keep getting told that there was no way that the MWP was warmer than now, EVEN ON A LOCAL BASIS, despite this actual physical evidence.

    Anyway, just because there is no immediate evidence from other parts of the world, does that actually mean it didn’t exist, or that we haven’t found any yet?

    i.e if I haven’t found evidence of X, does it prove that X doesn’t exist.

    The question about the current day is irrelevent. I am talking about the MWP here, and why we get fed these lies about hockey sticks.

    Thanks for the video Cedric. Of course, real scientists don’t link to propaganda videos, they cite PAPERS.

    However, feel free to insult me, call me a denialist, whatever,

    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat
    CUT AND PASTE CEDRIC,
    repeat

    Like

  30. David I don’t have that experience. If anything I keep hearing that there was a global MWP – but not from scientific sources. When I look into the evidence I find that nothing beyond regional effects are clear. Eg Northern Europe but not in Southern Europe. But I have an open mind – I go with evidence not extreme statements on blogs.

    I am also fed up with lies about Mann and the “hockey stick”. Here again the evidence supports Mann’s work and it has been repeated by others. Yet I get told by bloggers the work is discredited (not true) and was not included in the last IPCC report (also not true).

    Why do you think these people feel the need to lie about such things?

    Sent from my iPod

    Like

  31. “Why do you think these people feel the need to lie about such things? ”

    Because it’s all about the narrative, not the science. It’s about creating the story about AGW.
    It’s not about creating an accurate image of past climate

    Like

  32. Richard Christie

    Anyway, just because there is no immediate evidence from other parts of the world, does that actually mean it didn’t exist, or that we haven’t found any yet?

    i.e if I haven’t found evidence of X, does it prove that X doesn’t exist.

    Words fail me.
    And Ken, I admire your patience, (imo you are far too easy on the obvious trolls (Diannes’s mum) and the logically and scientifically illiterate, above ).

    Like

  33. Actually, my info on England was based on me actually visiting a real medieval village.

    So?
    How does that help you?

    We keep getting told that there was no way that the MWP was warmer than now, EVEN ON A LOCAL BASIS, despite this actual physical evidence.

    Who is telling you what?
    Be specific.
    Cite your sources.
    Do a little research for a change.
    Come up with something concrete.

    Of course, real scientists don’t link to propaganda videos, they cite PAPERS.

    God, you’re stupid.
    Read this slowly.

    The…video…is…a…simple…way…of…understanding…the…science.

    That science is from peer-reviewed research.
    Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    Scientists have looked at the MWP.
    Honest.
    It’s old news.
    They are not going to go all ga-ga just because a simpleton like you “went to a village and looked at pretty stones ‘n’ stuff”.

    … just because there is no immediate evidence from other parts of the world, does that actually mean it didn’t exist, or that we haven’t found any yet?

    Poe worthy.
    Savour every word.
    Feel the dumb touching your very soul.
    Behold the intellect of your average denier.

    One minute it all “Greenland and Scotland and the bit next to Scotland and…and…the WHOLE OF THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, B’GOSH….um sorta”.

    The next minute it’s “…no immediate evidence from other parts of the world” but, but that don’t mean nuttin’. Don’t mean nuttin’ at all.”

    Beautiful.
    🙂

    Here’s the problem.
    What good would it do if even it was demonstrated tomorrow that the MWP was global as opposed to regional?

    How would that change anything about the observations made NOW about global warming?
    Think about it.
    How does it get us off the hook?

    The climate changes.
    Yeah….ok.
    It changed in the past.
    Yeah….ok.
    So?

    Why the obsession with the MWP?
    How does it help you?
    Why bring it up at all?

    Because it’s all about the narrative, not the science. It’s about creating the story about AGW.

    So you think that NASA are telling you…stories?
    You think that every single scientific community on the planet covering all the Earth sciences is…lying to you?
    It’s all a big story? A fairy tale?

    It’s a…sekrit konspiracy?
    Cool.
    Wonderful.

    How does the conspiracy work?
    What information do you have?
    How did you figure this all out?

    Let’s start with NASA.
    How does NASA get away with lying to you about global warming?
    Are they using the same spin doctors that conned the world into thinking that man really landed on the moon or did they go with different people this time?
    Do tell.
    Don’t spare us any details.
    🙂

    Like

  34. Cedric,
    I .. am .. sorry.. I am .. a .. bit .. retarded…

    thanks .. for .. your ..understanding.

    Let me give you and your friends on this blog a suggestion.
    Ken, Cedric, Richard

    If you care so much about this “climate crisis”, go home, crush your car, live in the dark, eat only raw vegetables.

    Get yourself sterilised.

    Then get off the internet, after all, that is powered by fossil fuels

    When you have done that, take a very large rusty old steel bar, and shove it up your yellow sweaty arse, you narrow minded idiot

    Repeat, Cedric Katesby

    When you have done that, take a very large rusty old steel bar, and shove it up your yellow sweaty arse, you narrow minded idiot

    Repeat, Cedric Katesby

    When you have done that, take a very large rusty old steel bar, and shove it up your yellow sweaty arse, you narrow minded idiot

    Repeat, Cedric Katesby

    When you have done that, take a very large rusty old steel bar, and shove it up your yellow sweaty arse, you narrow minded idiot

    GET IT!!!!!!!!!

    Repeat, Cedric Katesby

    When you have done that, take a very large rusty old steel bar, and shove it up your yellow sweaty arse, you narrow minded idiot

    Repeat, Cedric Katesby

    When you have done that, take a very large rusty old steel bar, and shove it up your yellow sweaty arse, you narrow minded idiot

    Repeat, Cedric Katesby

    When you have done that, take a very large rusty old steel bar, and shove it up your yellow sweaty arse, you narrow minded idiot

    Like

  35. Richard Christie

    more fun than a turkey shoot

    Like

  36. …more fun than a turkey shoot…

    It is rather fun.
    A few questions here and a couple of “own goals” there and BOOM, the foaming-at-the-mouth ranting begins!

    …I .. am .. sorry.. I am .. a .. bit .. retarded…

    Don’t insult retarded people.
    It’s not nice.
    Your logic and level of discussion ASPIRES to the level of a retarded person.
    It’s possible to reason and have a perfectly good conversation with retarded people.
    You? Not so much.

    You are just ignorant.
    Dumb and ignorant.

    …… just because there is no immediate evidence from other parts of the world, does that actually mean it didn’t exist, or that we haven’t found any yet?

    Glorious stuff.
    No wonder you swallowed the “Medieval warm period” meme hook-line-and-sinker.
    You do realise that this is a standard religious argument, right?
    In fact, it’s the standard argument for the existence of UFO’s and Bigfoot.
    Wonderful.
    Just wonderful.
    The fact that you volunteered this gem all by yourself is simply icing on the cake.
    🙂

    Because it’s all about the narrative, not the science. It’s about creating the story about AGW.

    Then don’t let “the man” keep you silent!
    Reveal the truth about the konspiracy.
    Tell all.

    How does the global scientific community get away with telling tall tales about “climate change”?
    How does the sekrit konspiracy actually work?

    Let’s start with NASA.
    NASA, as I’m sure you don’t know, is perhaps the most famous scientific body on the planet with a well-earned reputation for good science.
    They’ve been studying the Earth’s climate for decades now.
    Launching satellites, polar expeditions, ocean surveys, meterological data gathering, mapping migration movements of flora and fauna, atmospheric testing plus a host of other scientific data gathering.
    They are fully on board with the science of global warming and climate change.
    100%.
    That’s because they’ve been leading the charge since the beginning to find out about how the climate works and humanity’s impact on the atmosphere.
    NASA. Cool stuff.

    Yet, according to you, it’s all just a “narrative”.
    Wow.
    Double wow.
    Who knew?

    A conspiracy by NASA and every other single scientific community on the planet to tell porky-pies to the general public?

    The fiends!!!
    How do they do it?
    How they keep a lid on such a dastardly scheme?
    After all, like the Italians say, two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead.

    Tell us.
    Tell us how you discovered the conspiracy.
    Give us the details.
    Reveal all.
    Is there a connection with…the commies?
    Has the whole of NASA been infiltrated by the old-style KGB?
    The public has a right to know.
    🙂

    Like

  37. Richard, I think I am playing the good cop to Cedric’s bad cop.

    People like David Shi and Diannes Mum (David Parket) don’t fool me. But I am conscious that there could be other readers who may benefit from answers.

    Of course when the troll goes beserk like David Shi that is another lesson for the unbiased reader.

    Like

  38. Richard, I think I am playing the good cop to Cedric’s bad cop.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    I’m flattered.
    🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s