Global cooling? Statisticians reject climate claims

Oh, how I wish it were true and we could stop worrying -- but unfortunately there's no real global cooling:

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

[...]

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics’ satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a “mild downward trend,” he said. But doing that is “deceptive.”

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

Details at http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/10/26/11530856-ap.html

[Important Notice]

The denialists are still at work

In a column in the Winnipeg Sun (found on CNews), Tom Brodbeck states that there are "many credible scientists with alternative views" on climate change. He gives two examples. The problem is that both of them are connected to energy industry lobbyists:

Brodbeck says: "Tim Patterson is an earth sciences professor at Carlton University in Ottawa. He says he doesn't accept the idea that man-made greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm."

According to deSmogBlog, Dr. Patterson is connected to the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, who's stated purpose on their web site is to "Have a measurable impact on the public's understanding of climate change, with a target of significantly lessening support for implementation of CO2 controls."

This group was apparently created by many of the former Friends of Science, and is controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

His other "find" is Dr. Madhav Khandekar, who is also apparently connected with the NRSP, and who finds the IPCC report to be "a bit too simplistic".

Again, deSmogBlog says that Dr. Khandekar is an " expert adviser and contributor to oil backed spin machine Envirotruth".

Mr. Brodbeck rejects the words of David Suzuki, as if he was just some crank, and doesn't seem to consider the overwhelming majority of IPCC scientists to be worthy of his time. Instead he would have us spend more time listening to these guys. Well, if they have evidence that the climate is not changing, or that we are not responsible - let's hear it. I certainly didn't find any in this column. And let's have full disclosure of their affiliations and funding sources as well.

They call it 'balance'; I call it 'gross misrepresentation of the truth'!

Perhaps Harper's problem is watching too much US television. Recent ads put out by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - an industry-funded lobby group - use the tag line "They call it pollution; we call it Life", in reference to CO2 being labelled a pollutant.

You have got to see these ads to believe them! They would be hilarious if they weren't so creepy!

The second one shows the titles of two papers they claim show that global warming is not causing the glaciers to melt. However, the conclusions of the actual papers mentioned make the opposite point. See here and here for an analysis.

Debunking the 'skeptics'

For a great overview of the Canadian global warming denial lobby, read this piece by Donald Gutstein (in The Tyee).

Here's a quote, talking about Jim Hoggan's deSmogBlog:

In a recent post, Hoggan discusses a column by Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson, who complains that here's a letter from 90 scientists urging action; there's a letter from 60 scientists urging Harper to ignore calls to action. "What's a layman to do?" Ibbitson whines.

His solution? Forget about global warming and instead work with the US to improve air quality. "After all," he writes, "a continental agreement on air quality would do far more to improve the lives of both Americans and Canadians than any actions specifically targeted at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

It's called bait and switch. We're alarmed about the health of the planet our grandchildren will inherit. But (thanks to the lies and deceptions of the deniers) nobody can agree on what's happening, let alone what should be done. So let's do something that we can all agree on instead.

Ibbitson's column makes clear the political purpose of the deniers' letter -- to help Harper out of a tight corner. His goal of capturing a majority government depends on winning seats in Ontario and Quebec, the provinces where support for Kyoto is strongest. He could court their support by giving them Kyoto, but this would infuriate his oil industry masters.

Warning: Proximity to oil sands may cause near-sightedness

According to a recent Leger Marketing survey, 23% of Canadians "believe global warming will lead to the destruction of the planet". They also broke down the results province-by-province:

Thirty-one per cent of Quebecers believed in the end-of-the-world scenario, while other regional breakdowns along the same lines were: British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces, 22 per cent; Ontario, 21 per cent; and Alberta, 16 per cent. (emphasis is mine)

I guess if you make enough money on the oil patch you can buy yourself another planet or something.

[Disclaimer: "The margins of error for the regional breakdowns are higher."]

Canadian 'skeptics'

Heard the one about the '60 leading scientists' who don't think climate change is real?

The National Post published this letter from signed by 60 scientists (well, at least 2 are economists, but who's counting?).

I don't normally read the Post, but I found references in other media to these 'leading scientists', and tracked down the letter. I was curious who these people were - how do they know each other, and who coordinated this letter? Anyway, after a bit of searching I found that at least some of them are affiliated with a group called Friends of Science. Clearly, this is a group dedicated to not believing in global warming. I found at least one reference to the Fraser Institute on their website, which sent up another red flag.

According to the website SourceWatch, the FoS domain name "registered to Charles Simpson, a "retired oil industry employee"."

Follow the Money
There's more interesting information on Tim Ball (a FoS member, and signatory to the letter) in this article by Daniel Gutstein. It seems that a lot of Mr. Ball's work is sponsored by coal and oil companies. What a surprise!

And the other side...
Here is a more detailed description of what is wrong with this letter. Way to go Joanna! What she said!

Do nothing? You can't be serious!

Here's a great piece from the Times Online (UK) arguing against the 'climate change skeptics'. Some nice quotes:

"If we discovered that some asteroid was heading in our direction with a 5 per cent chance of collision, we would mobilise every missile, throw all our money at strategies to deflect it. But when scientists confront us with a threat that they believe is still within our control, we wish it away. Crazy."

"The real superstition here is our horror of using less, in societies that have been reared on consumption. There is a desperate fear that greater efficiency would devastate the economy. But the idea that we are plunging into a new Dark Ages is ridiculous. Is everything we hold dear threatened if we have to refit our homes with energy-efficient lightbulbs? In the US, corporations that have reduced energy use have made money."

I think the idea of buying 'clean' power plants for China is an interesting one. What do you think?