Monday, August 11, 2014

CO2 Levels Climbing But Not Temperature

Thank you for the response.  I would like to submit the article .  A main argument is that, since we have recently been emitting record levels of carbon dioxide, yet the earth has been cooling over the last seventeen years, man made global warming is disproved.  I would also like to submit the article as it shows how the earth's temperature has not warmed over the past 17 years.
Thank you,

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Christopher Keating wrote:

Yes, I can provide scientific evidence that refutes all of the claims in those articles. And, yes, credential do matter. I hope you will not give equal credence to some one off the street as you would give experts in the field. As for proving everything point-by-point, I am not going to do that in an email. If you will check my blog, you will see that I have addressed the just about all of those issues. As for the Earth cooling, look at this website (written and maintained by people that really do know what they are talking about):

Here is another one, maintained by climate scientists:

There are just a couple of very many excellent sites that will show you why the claims in those articles are false. That should be enough for you to get started on your own.

If you wish to submit these articles to my challenge, you are welcome to do so. The deadline is tonight.

Chris Keating

Start here
We've often been asked to provide a one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change, and so here is a first cu...
Preview by Yahoo

Global Warming : Feature Articles
Global warming is happening now, and scientists are confident that greenhouse gases are responsible. To understand what this means for humanity, it is n...
Preview by Yahoo

From: AM
To: Christopher Keating
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:39 PM

Subject: Re: Climate Change Skeptic Challenge

Thank you very much for the response.  However, when you refute the first two references, can you provide actual scientific evidence?  Reading your response, it looks as if you're simply disagreeing with the writer of the articles, and the Heartland Institute.  However, just because some person does not have credentials does not mean their argument is wrong.  So can you respond with whether the science in the first two articles disproves global warming?  Your disagreement with the writers' credentials and the Institute they work for does not prove anything about the scientific evidence in their articles.  I think their articles actually provide evidence that man-caused global warming is not real.  The Forbes article  ( shows that our earth is actually cooling.  The second article ( ) describes how " the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict."  In other words, less heat is being trapped in our atmosphere than the global warming models predict; so this evidence disproves a central tenet of the man-caused global warming theory.
Additionally, this article about MIT scientists' findings provides evidence against man-caused global warming: .  The earth has been naturally cooling and warming over hundreds of thousands of years.  If mankind's carbon dioxide emissions were causing global warming, wouldn't we have had a much greater global heating in the past hundred years?  Why would the earth have been naturally cooling and heating for hundreds of thousands of years before humans even existed? Can't these fluctuations in the global temperature be natural?
I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to respond to the articles I sent.  However, instead of simply saying you don't think writers are credible, or that the Institutions they work for disagree with global warming, will you please just discuss the science in their articles, and whether the evidence proves or provides evidence that man-made global warming is false?

Thanks, again, for the discussion!

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Christopher Keating wrote:

Obviously, I am fully on the side that say global warming is real. Please note that I didn’t say ‘believe’ because you don’t ‘believe’ in science. Do you say you ‘believe’ in gravity? Science is something you accept and understand, or you don’t and the scientific evidence that man made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) is real simply overwhelming. The only way you can deny AGW is to deny science.
Having said that, let’s take a look at these references you provided.
The first one comes from Forbes, which is a mixed bag. They will have articles written by some of the best climate scientists out there, just to follow-up with some of the biggest yahoos. This is an example of the latter.
This is what Wikipedia says about Peter Ferrara:
Peter Joseph Ferrara (born 1955)[1][2] is an American lawyer, policy analyst, and columnist who is the current general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union and analyst for The Heartland Institute. A libertarian scholar, he is most well known for supporting privatization of the Social Security program.
There are a couple of things to note here. First, he has absolutely no credentials in climate science at all. None! Would you take you medical advice from a lawyer? Why would you trust a lawyer to give you advice on climate science? It takes climate scientists decades to become experts in that field and this lawyer, with no experience, feels he can refute the entire world population of those scientists? Problem number one.
Then, note that he works for the Heartland Institute. This is a very vile organization that takes money from the fossil fuel industry with the stated mission of undermining climate science. They are also involved in the campaign that claims second-hand smoke is not harmful. Look them up and check out their track record. It is not pretty. Anyone associated or affiliated with Heartland in any way is not a credible source.
Take a look at this article written by a climate scientist on the same subject, coincidentally also from Forbes:
Moving on to the second article. Roy Spencer is another of the Heartland bunch. He has been caught falsifying his research in the past and is a public advocate of creationism and intelligent design.
I have many complaints about Spencer, but one will illustrate the entire issue. He and another scientist, John Christy, published a paper in the early 1990s that used satellite data to show there was no measurable warming of the atmosphere. This became the paper-to-be-cited by contrarians for years as evidence that there is not global warming. But, then it was determined that there were four separate fatal flaws in their data analysis. Now, Spencer and Christy and not only genuine scientists, but are recognized experts in the field of climate data analysis. So, two acknowledged experts made four fatal flaws, all four flaws were discovered by others and all four worked to confirm the conclusion Spencer and Christy wanted to reach. The law of averages says that at least one of them should have worked against their desired conclusion. Did they falsify their work? I am firmly convinced they did so and many other people are, as well. Further, I firmly believe this would be enough to convince a jury, if it was ever put to one. Spencer and Christy finally withdrew the paper.
That is not the end of the story about Spencer. He has a long record of purposely working to undermine climate science and has a long record of being debunked.
On to the third reference.
I don’t know who the person making this blog is, so I can’t speak to his credentials. (Why is that?)
I looked through the blog pretty quickly and what I can tell you is what I saw in there is either an outright lie, or a false argument.  Things such as the Newsweek cover story. This is such a debunked claim that they have to be lying any time the pull it out because they know it isn’t true. So, what? A news reporter got something wrong 40 years ago! That isn’t what scientists were saying at the time. And, what if they were? Are you going to stop going to see a doctor because Newsweek might have gotten a cover story on medicine wrong?
That is the typical logic they exhibit.
You will need to go through the claims on the blog yourself, but if you are willing to do the homework, you can easily find that they are working very hard to deceive you.
I hope this helped.

Christopher Keating

From: AM
To: Christopher Keating
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Climate Change Skeptic Challenge


The following three websites provide evidence that man made global warming is not real or disprove man made global warming.  I would appreciate hearing your response about these articles and whether, as a scientist, you find the evidence credible that global warming may be false.
Thank you,


Starting at the top of this submission (which is actually the latest part of the submission), let's look at the first article linked in this submission, What Catastrophe?, by Richard Lindzen

The first criticism of this article is about the author. Lindzen is a genuine climate scientist and was a one-time chaired professor at MIT. Unfortunately, he is also associated with the Heartland Institute, the denier organization that is funded by the fossil fuel industry to undermine climate science, and is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry. His research has been continually refuted and he has been caught lying  about his funding. For years, when asked about receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry, he stated over and over how he only received funding for his research from the government. Well, it finally came out that he was receiving $2500 a day in consulting fees. As the old saying goes, the lie of omission is still a lie. Eventually, he left MIT (and there are all sorts of stories about that swirling around) and went to the Cato Institute, which is a conservative group funded in large part by - guess who? - the fossil fuel industry!

But, it should be noted that Lindzen does not dispute global warming. So, even using this guy doesn't do anything for your case. What he argues is there are negative feedback mechanisms that will cancel out the effects of global warming. Funny how he only does research on negative feedbacks and every time he finds one, his research gets debunked. But, read this statement from the article referenced above:
The Earth’s climate is immensely complex, but the basic principle behind the “greenhouse effect” is easy to understand. The burning of oil, gas, and especially coal pumps carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, where they allow the sun’s heat to penetrate to the Earth’s surface but impede its escape, thus causing the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface to warm. Essentially everybody, Lindzen included, agrees. 
I strongly dispute that statement that 'everyone agrees,' but it makes the point that he is not disputing man made global warming.

And, again,
All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role.
So, this article does not do anything as part of a proof that man made global warming is not real. If you want to argue about mitigation then you could use this article. I wouldn't suggest it, but you could. In any event, this challenge isn't about mitigation.

The next article is written by someone that has no credentials in climate science at all. I reviewed his credentials in my email included in the submission above. Virtually everything he writes, in this article and all others of his that I have read, is a false argument, a lie or just plain deceitful. I'll give you an example from this article. Take a look at his graph:


Why did he chose that trend line? This trend line is from an average that uses September 1996 as the starting point and January 2014 as the end point. Why? Because is gives a trend line of no change, which is what he wants to show. This is what is known as cherry-picking and involves picking data that justifies your preconceived conclusion. How so? Let's do this exercise: Let's take our starting points to be 1997 or 1999, instead of 1996. And, let's end in 2010. Hey! It is only a few years earlier or later for the start point and end points. What difference could that possibly make? Let's see:

For 1997 - 2011 the temperature difference is 1.1 degrees C, for a trend of .08 degrees C per year.

For 1999 - 2011 the temperature difference is 1.7 degrees C, for a trend of .14 degrees C per year.

Quite a difference and yet, we only made a small change in our starting and ending points.

But, that is only part of why this is a false argument and designed to deceive. This graph shows only the global average surface temperature and when we say 'global warming' we mean the globe, not just one, isolated part of it. Where is the ocean heating in this graph? Ocean heating accounts for 93% of global warming. Why isn't that included in this discussion? Maybe, it's because it doesn't fit their preconceived conclusion. Take a look at this graph of the global heat content and tell me there hasn't been any warming over the last 17 years:

Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-present 0-700 m
Source: NOAA

Here is an article, also in Forbes, that debunks this entire claim of no heating.

Then, you mention the easiest one to debunk, an article (by the same no-credentials Forbes lackey that wrote your previous article) about the claims made by the Heartland Institute. This is a group of people that, among other things, are leading the campaign to convince people that second-hand smoke is harmless. They receive enormous amounts of funding every year from the fossil fuel industry with the directive to undermine climate science. Do a little research on them. I have commented on them repeatedly with lots and lots of references showing just why I call them the vilest group of people in the climate debate. If they claim it, you can safely assume it is a lie.

The next article you mention discusses claims by Roy Spencer.  This is one of the most notorious of the deniers out there. Like Lindzen, he has authentic credentials. This explains why he is one of the people that you can find on just about any denier program. There is only a few denier scientists out there. Roy Spencer has been caught repeatedly simply falsifying his research. Some of it was so glaring that he actually had to retract his papers. I have said it before but its worth repeating - If you use Roy Spencer as a source of information you are going to be wrong.

Here is one review of the paper referenced above, written by active climate scientists, with the conclusion:
The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).
This paper has been caught up in so much controversy that it is a perfect example of the work and procedures of Mr. Spencer. The paper was slipped past reviewers and the editor of the paper that made the decision on the paper is an admitted climate denier that has stated in interviews he will use his position to further his political agenda, blissfully justifying it with the statement, "Isn't that what editors are suppose to do?" As a result of this paper being published, the editor-in-chief resigned his position, as well as six other associate editors. It is a thoroughly debunked piece of work.

By the way, Roy Spencer is one of the people that is closely associated with Heartland. Surely, that should surprise no one. He is also a creationist and signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. This demonstrates he will reject any science that does not conform to his predetermined beliefs.

The next part of your submission is about claims that this is just a natural cycle. This is one of the worst false arguments out there and one that people fall for most easily. I wrote a post about this topic that you can read here. But, in summary: Yes, the climate changes. We know this because climate scientists have done the hard work to figure this out. And, yes, the climate is continuing to go through naturally occurring changes today. But, that naturally occurring cycle of today is for a cooling trend, not a warming one. Funny how the contrarians keep leaving that little detail out. If left to itself, the climate would be cooling right now, not warming. 

Of the three links provided at the bottom of the submission, I already commented on two of them. The third link is to a website that is little more than a compilation of previous claims, and a pretty poor one at that. I have already debunked everything I saw at that cite.

In conclusion, you gave me a bunch of links to people that have been shown to be paid to undermine climate science. There is no scientific evidence in any of the links you provided to support any claim that man made global warming is not real. And, that shows just what kind of people are out there working to convince the public it isn't real. They will make any claim and say anything they think will help them win the fight. Unfortunately, the evidence shows their strategy is a good one and they are winning the fight.

But, be that as it may, you did not prove man made global warming is not real.  

No comments:

Post a Comment