Rebuttal to Greenfyre - 450 More Lies

O-10 **** General
O-10 **** General
Joined: Nov 17 2004, 10:19 AM

Dec 23 2009, 02:54 AM #1

Rebuttal to Greenfyre - "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"

Greenfyre's years old, rambling blog post of lies is something alarmists find when they desperately Google for anything to discredit the list. All of his nonsense has long been addressed and has no relation to the current version of the list. As demonstrated below, absolutely nothing in his post is factually accurate. Many of these corrections to his nonsense were made in the comment section to his blog post but Greenfyre dishonestly refused to make any corrections. Instead he hopes people will reject the list based on his propaganda.

The Truth About Greenfyre

"Greenfyre is the Internet blog and screen name for a radical environmental activist, Mike Kaulbars from Ottawa, Canada. He is a founder of the Earth First! chapter in Ottawa, Canada, an eco-terrorist organization with a long history of violence and sabotage."

1. Greenfyre starts off with childish ad hominem attacks of calling skeptics "deniers". It is a desperate attempt to move the argument away from the science and instead try to silence the skeptics through ridicule. This is a typical propaganda tactic to try and associate skeptics with holocaust deniers,

Skeptics Smeared As Holocaust Deniers, ADL Silent

Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech (Spiked, UK)
Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers' Desperation (The Heartland Institute)

2. Greenfyre makes the absurd conclusion that Roger Pielke Jr. "pulled" papers off the list. This is impossible since Roger Pielke Jr. never submitted any papers to the list. This is not a list of skeptics. The detailed rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr.'s post is here,

Rebuttal to "Better Recheck That List"

3. Greenfyre lies that the journal Energy & Environment is not peer-reviewed.

Thompson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

EBSCO Publishing lists Energy & Environment as a Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Journal (PDF)

EBSCO has been around for over 60 years and their services are used by colleges, universities, hospitals, medical institutions, government institutions and public libraries.

The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times

Even Dr. Tom Wigley, an ACC/AGW Alarmism proponent acknowledged that E&E is peer-reviewed as disclosed in the Climategate emails,

"E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

The publishing company Multi-Science states this explicitly on their website,

"All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing

Finally it is explicitly stated in their mission statement that E&E is peer-reviewed,

"Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed." - E&E Mission Statement

4. Greenfyre lies that some of the papers do not count because they are "submitted" not "published" papers. Apparently he failed to read the note: "Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count." There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. Greenfyre should try counting the papers on the list - something he has obviously never done!

5. Greenfyre lies that some of the peer-reviewed papers are known to be wrong by linking to blogs and wikis as "refutations". It is a common alarmist tactic to claim that the existence of a refutation makes something "wrong". That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper. It is also a common alarmist tactic to only list the comment criticizing a paper and not the rebuttal by the original author. These rebuttals are included (but not counted) in the list. None of the papers he listed have been proven wrong,

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Defended - An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Defended- The Consistency of Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere: A Comment on Santer et al (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

A deliberate corruption of the peer-review process regarding the intentional withholding of the print version of Douglas et al. 2007 for 11 months to coincide with a non-standard rebuttal by Santer et al. 2008 is detailed here,

A Climatology Conspiracy? (American Thinker)
- Appendix A: A scientific discussion of the DCPS paper
- Appendix B: E-mail chronology

Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)
- Zbigniew Jaworowski

No Published Criticism

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)
- G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

No Published Criticism

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

Correction - Correction to "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, October 2009)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

Defended - Response to "Comment on ‘Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature'" by Foster et al. (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010)
- John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

Defended - Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (PDF)
(Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, 2009)
- David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Volume 111, Number 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)
- Ferenc M. Miskolczi

No Published Criticism

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

No Published Criticism

Does a Global Temperature Exist?
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 1–27, February 2007)
- Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen

No Published Criticism

6. Greenfyre lies that the Hockey Stick papers have been refuted. Only one of those papers have published criticisms and they both have been rebutted,

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Defended - Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Defended - Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
Hockey Stick - What is Normal? (Video) (8min)

7. Greenfyre lies that various papers are strawman arguments. What is ironic is he then fabricates an actual strawman in regards to the papers he listed as not "evidence against climate change". No kidding! None of the papers are arguing against "climate change". The debate is not about "climate change" but rather man's influence on it and the alleged catastrophe. Again the note states that the papers "The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarmism defined as, "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.". The one thing he has demonstrated is his inability to read clearly.

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
- Anastasios A. Tsonis et al.

"These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system."

This is contrary to the popular theory that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols and directly implicates natural variability associated with ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation).

Source: Chaos theory and oceans may determine the climate (Lubos Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)
Source: Climate Change Chaos (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)

Update: This paper was removed based on an updated paper published by two of the same authors, "Has the climate recently shifted?".

Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
(Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 1013-1016, November 2005)
- Ola M. Johannessen et al.

"A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites, 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is –2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation."

A net increase in the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet and the cause directly related to natural variability associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) supports skepticism.

Source: Greenland Ice Sheet: Going, Going ... Growing! (Craig Idso, Ph.D Geography)

A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2008)
- Elizabeth R. Thomas et al.

"The Gomez record reveals a doubling of accumulation since the 1850s, from a decadal average of 0.49 mweq y−1 in 1855–1864 to 1.10 mweq y−1 in 1997–2006, with acceleration in recent decades. Comparison with published accumulation records indicates that this rapid increase is the largest observed across the region. Evaluation of the relationships between Gomez accumulation and the primary modes of atmospheric circulation variability reveals a strong, temporally stable and positive relationship with the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). Furthermore, the SAM is demonstrated to be a primary factor in governing decadal variability of accumulation at the core site,"

An increase in snowfall accumulation on the antarctic peninsula related to natural variability associated with the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) supports skepticism.

Source: Antarctica Snowfall Increase (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)

8. Greenfyre lies that the CO2 lag is consistent with climate science. Only if you declare it irrelevant, make unsubstantiated assumptions and support your assumptions with hand tuned computer climate models that are nothing more than the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them - just like Lorius et al did.

Source: Ancient ice shows warming ahead of CO2 (UPI)
Source: CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist)
Source: Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be (Sherwood Idso, Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory)
Source: The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations (Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Professor of Physics)

9. Greenfyre lies that papers supporting the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) are a strawman argument. If this was true then there would have been no need for the IPCC to prominently feature Michael Mann's Hockey Stick reconstruction (MBH98) in their third assessment report (TAR) in 2001. It was clear that their intent was to show that the 20th century warming was unique and due to man-made causes. It is only after the Hockey Stick (MBH98) was exposed for what is was - fraud, this argument was changed. Clearly the existence of an earlier time period (MWP) with warming equivalent or greater than today puts in doubt the apocalyptic scenarios being pushed by any current warming.

10. Greenfyre lies that certain papers are trivial and implies they do not support skepticism. The one paper he cites is not trivial and directly supports skepticism by rebutting a paper used to support alarmist claims.

Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summer warmth
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 87, Numbers 1-4, pp. 255-256, January 2007)
- D. J. Keenan

"The model used by Chuine et al. (2004) has greatly overestimated the temperature of 2003 and greatly underestimated the temperatures of the warmest years in the instrumental record prior to then. These failures of the model imply that the model is inadequate for estimating the temperature in unusually warm years."

This paper [Keenan 2007] refutes Chuine 2004 which alleged 2003 to be the warmest year on record and finds that the warmest year on record to be 1947. Clearly this supports skepticism of a recent significant warming trend due to man-made CO2 as implied by papers which cite Chuine 2004, "The 2003 Heat Wave in France: Dangerous Climate Change Here and Now".

Update: This paper was moved to the "Rebuttals to Published Alarmist Papers" section where it is more appropriate.

11. Greenfyre lies that certain "dated" papers have had their content "answered". This is absolutely not true,

Overlooked scientific issues in assessing hypothesized greenhouse gas warming
(Environmental Software, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 100-107, 1991)
- Roger A. Pielke Sr.

"The questions which need to answered include the importance of other anthropogenic influences such as landscape changes and enhanced atmospheric aerosol loading."

Dr. Pielke Sr. to this day continues to argue for more emphasis on land use changes and enhanced atmospheric aerosol loading over CO2. He recently just published a paper on this very issue!

Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 45, November 2009)
- Roger Pielke Sr. et al.

"In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first-order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth’s climate. These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) [Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]), and the role of changes in land use/land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009]."

Update: This paper was removed after determining that defending it's inclusion was a distraction from the quality of the list, even though a co-author was using strawman arguments for why it was included (e.g. "Please remove this article from your list of skeptics").

12. Greenfyre claims that the paper "Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming" does not support skepticism. He pathetically resorts to using a strawman by saying it does not support "denial" [1]. This paper supports skepticism of CO2 as a primary climate driver since up to 89% of the observed warming in the time period studied cannot be explained by CO2 forcing. The paper explicitly mentions that other forcings would have to account for the discrepancy,

"If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then ...forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming."

Source: Ancient Evidence That CO2 Does Not Control Climate (The Resilient Earth)

Update: This paper was removed since it can also be used to support alarmist arguments that climate models underestimate warming.

13. Greenfyre incorrectly believes that because some of the papers are mutually exclusive, the list is falsified. The list is a bibliographic resource not a unified scientific theory and does not discriminate between competing skeptical viewpoints. It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds regarding any mutually exclusive claims. Anyone open minded would accept the existence of independent thought and debate on climate change.

14. Greenfyre in closing continues to repeat his earlier lies [1, 3] and that none of the papers he looked at are current. This is simply propaganda as over 170 of the papers on the list are from the last three years.

Update: Greenfyre is censoring my comments on his site because he is dishonest and refuses to make corrections for his blatant lies.