Monday, January 26, 2009

Global Cooling: An Eleven Year Trend?

It will be interesting to watch what happens to the AGW denialists' arguments concerning recent temperature trends, since now 1998 is no longer among "the last ten years", as in "global temperatures have been declining for the last ten years". 1999 is now the year at the beginning of "the last ten years", and unfortunately for the AGW denialists, 1999's average temperature was not freakishly high like 1998 was, and in fact was below the regression curves as you can see here:

The denialists now have a serious problem, since the 1999 and 2000 average temperatures are considerably lower than any that follow them. They can't say temperatures have declined for the last ten years any more without exposing themselves as either ignorant parrots or liars. They can't suddenly emphasize the last 11 years without it having the effect of tattooing "cherry pickers R us" on their proclamations.

My prediction is that they will simply keep saying temperatures have dropped for the last ten years regardless of the new data, in similar fashion to how creationists keep chanting "there are no transitional fossils" as those very fossils pile up around them. After all, they were never really interested in reality, or they wouldn't be denialists in the first place.


alex said...

"It will be interesting to watch what happens to the AGW denialists' arguments concerning recent temperature trends, "

What if one believes in GW, but not AGW? Your entire post does not touch on the issue of GW vs AGW.

ScienceAvenger said...

True enough. That's because one of the interesting raits of scientific denialists is their lack of concern for consistency in their positions, oscillating between mutually contradictory alternatives. Anything is acceptable as long it is against the enemy. So we have YECs, OECs and IDers happy to attack evolution while largely ignoring the stark differences between ech other, and AGW denialists doing the same thing from denying warming altogether, to admitting the warming but not the connection to human actions, to admitting all of that, but claiming that any action to counter it will be worse than doing nothing. Anything but admitting there may have to be changes to what we consider acceptable.

It's the inevitable consequence of a moving-the-goalposts mindset. It is also the opposite of how scientists tend to behave, where they are happy to go hammer and tongs on each other over the most minor differences.

When the AGWs and the GWs are willing to do battle with each other, I'll conern myself a lot more with the differences between them.

alex said...

"So we have YECs, OECs and IDers happy to attack evolution while largely ignoring the stark differences between ech other"

Yeah, but you know that evolutionists are wont to ignore the stark differences between Biblical Creationists and IDers, too.

ScienceAvenger said...

There is nothing wrong, in a scientific setting, to ignore political issues, and that is the entirety of the difference between the more honest forms of creationism and ID. ID is merely creationism with the politically sensitive components stripped out.

alex said...

A new video appeared describing senior atmospheric scientist Dr. John Theon, expressing his skepticims about AGW. Theon would evaluate James Hanson's results:

Please express your mockery of him in the same way you express your mockery of the right wing Christian deniers of AGW.

ScienceAvenger said...

I will, and with enthusiasm. Despite his credentials, Theon's objections are the same nonscientific claptrap we've gotten from other sources (which puts his comments in the same category as James Watson's racist screed), complete with vague references to "some scientists", and of course, lies about his position within the scientific organization (he wasn't Hansen's supervisor, but more his political gatekeeper). From this story:

"Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations."

And of course, he has done no science to support his position. Typical crankery. Once again, putting together petitions is not how one does science. Darwin, Galileo and Einstein did not petition the scientific community: they did science. Until the AGW deniers (and the IDers) do some science to support their position, they deserve all the mockery we can dish out.