Thursday, July 28, 2016

Free Speech is no license for malicious fraud and slander!

I've been wanting to Repost this article since I first read it last week.  It's something that is long overdue.  The time has arrived to reaffirm our need to deal honestly with today's many challenges.  Free Speech is not a license to commit fraud through the agents of malicious slander nor by out-screaming and misrepresenting the science serious experts are trying to explain to our leaders and citizens.  

A publicity campaign ruthlessly bent on dumbing down our collective understanding of critically important issues deserves to be called criminal and prosecuted.  Why?  Because our leaders and citizens have the right, the need, to learn what serious competent scientists have been observing and learning about our planet and this climate system that we are absolutely depend on.

With a big thank you to Dana Nuccitelli, John Mashey, John Cook and the hard working volunteers at I present:

Déjà vu: as with tobacco, the climate wars are going to court
Posted on 18 July 2016 by Dana Nuccitelli, John Mashey

Investigative journalism has uncovered a “web of denial” in which polluting industries pay “independent” groups to disseminate misinformation to the public and policymakers. The same groups and tactics were employed first by the tobacco industry, then fossil fuel companies. Big Tobacco has been to court and lost; now it’s Big Oil’s turn. Political leaders are choosing sides in this war.

Research by Inside Climate News revealed that Exxon did top notch climate science research in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which revealed the dangers its products posed via climate change. Soon thereafter, Exxon launched misinformation campaigns by funding “think tanks” and front groups to manufacture doubt about climate science and the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

Exxon wasn’t alone. Koch Industries, Peabody Energy, and other fossil companies have similarly funneled vast sums of money to these groups. ...

Monday, July 25, 2016

From Russia with what ?

Привет России,
почему все интерес?

I'm a very small blog.  One man's hobby more than anything else.  Fills my need to share what I find interesting and important about our world and its biosphere, well and to confront shills who lie about climate science.  Somewhere in the past I had dreams of making some sort of impact, but a thinking person can deny the futility for only so long.  Truth be told, I've learned to appreciate I'm basically pissing in the wind.  Now days I think I'm evolving into simply being a 'witness' to what I see unfolding upon our one and only, once fantastic cornucopia, planet Earth.  Since there ain't nothing stopping this train-wreck we're in the midst of.

I bring this up because though I don't trust my "blog numbers" considering spiders and what not being counted.  I do know that once in a while the numbers go crazy.  For instance this past week suddenly Russia was taking a big interest.  I'm pretty sure it wasn't coffee shops full of kids trying to read my suddenly viral articles.  

Nah, something is searching my site, not that there's much to find.   Who knows, perhaps someone is getting ready to pull some mischief on me.  The recent headlines wouldn't have anything to do with my dark thoughts, hmmm.  How much do I care, difficult to say anymore.  
As Democrats Gather, a Russian Subplot Raises Intrigue
By David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth \ July 24, 2016

Why Experts Are Sure Russia Hacked the DNC Emails
By Josh Meyer | July 25, 2016



This is an update from Wednesday midday to add the following two screen shots. 
Something in Russia is giving my blog-count a heck of a bump, but what's it mean?

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Capozzola's "Hurricane Drought" examined (climatechangedispatch)

The depth of Republican power politics driven deception is mind-boggling.  By happenstance I’ve been introduced to Steven Capozzola, another appalling example of the base hostility and dishonesty towards constructively learning about what the experts have to share about our changing global climate system.  
Capozzola wrote an article about a New York Times Op-ed (7/15/16) written by Professor Adam Sobel, a bona fide climate scientist.  After his op-ed's bumpy start, which played right into the contrarian’s ruthless opportunism, Sobel did an admirable job of explaining what climate scientists have learned these past decades.  At least to those who were actually reading it with an eye to understanding what was written.  

Capozzola’s article however provided a fundamentally dishonest portrayal of, not just Sobel’s op-ed, but the scientific understanding in general.  In this review I will demonstrate why and how.

To me it remains flabbergasting that fraud like this is accepted as part of adult dialogue.  Constructive, it certainly is not.  Education, it has nothing to do with.  Sick entertainment for folks who hate our planet and other people, perhaps.  In any event, it’s this sort of attack on rationality, learning and decent experts that drives me to keep dogging these artful liars and traitors (toward our children’s future wellbeing.).

In this post I have copied Capozzola’s complete article not changing a word.  I will intersperse my own comments along with paragraphs from Adam Sobel’s maliciously defamed op-ed, and of course a few links to further legitimate information for your own edification.  

Climatologist Tries to Justify 11-year Hurricane Drought in New York Times Op-Ed

Written by Steven Capozzola, Guest Post on July 15, 2016, ClimateChangeDispatch

Capozzola:  The New York Times ran an op-ed today by Adam Sobel, an “atmospheric scientist at Columbia.” The gist of Sobel’s article: Since 2005, the United States has been experiencing a hurricane “drought” (i.e., no category 3 or higher hurricane has made landfall in 11 years.) 

But don’t worry, Sobel says, there will be more hurricanes soon, and the fact that they will be coming is proof of man-made climate change.

Yes, that’s what he’s saying.

The question is whether Sobel is writing the op-ed to buck himself up, or hoping to cheerlead the rest of the alarmist crowd. 

This delusionals call an 11 year Hurricane Drought?

I’m mulling over another atrocious piece of Climate Science Contrarian Fraud, this time by one Steven Capozzola a corporate public relations guy turned self-styled smarter-than-the-experts pundit.  His article “Climatologist Tries to Justify 11-year Hurricane Drought in New York Times Op-Ed” , July 15, 2016, ClimateChangeDispatch has been another parade of crafty disinformation intent on dumbing down its readers, you can read about it in my next posting.

In any event, the following paragraphs got me to looking into this supposed hurricane drought and here's a list of Atlantic and East Pacific ocean hurricanes and tropical storms since 2005, followed by a look at  2015 Northern Hemisphere category 4 and 5 hurricanes.  This information put the lie to Capozzola's spin fest.

Capozzola writes: It’s interesting to note that Sobel couches his statements with a series of disclaimers. Of hurricanes and climate, he says the “knowledge is far from perfect.” And he cites the arguments of his opponents to make a few safe caveats—he blames “natural variability” for the current hurricane drought.

Steven is the one couching his deceptive claim that simply because our coast has, sort of, been spared major hurricane damage in the past few years that somehow means we shouldn't be listening to the actual experts.

I know these weren’t category 3 or above, but seems to me they were pretty good lessons in what global warming enhanced storms will be doing to our coast, but then some refuse to learn:

Hurricane Ike - September 2008
Although it was classified as a category 2 storm, Ike remains the third costliest hurricane in U.S. history after Katrina and 1992’s Andrew. Total damage: $25 billion, mostly in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

Hurricane Sandy - October 29, 2012
Summary: Hurricane Sandy was the 18th named tropical cyclone of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season (June 1 - November 30). Sandy formed in the central Caribbean on October 22nd and intensified into a hurricane as it tracked north across Jamaica, eastern Cuba and the Bahamas. Sandy moved northeast of the United States until turning west toward the mid Atlantic coast on the 28th. Sandy transitioned into a post-tropical cyclone just prior to moving onshore near Atlantic City, NJ. For a complete summary of Sandy, view the National Hurricane Center Sandy Tropical Cyclone Report
Capozzola writes: Again, it’s somewhat embarrassing that the New York Times would publish an op-ed that essentially says: ‘We haven’t seen any major hurricanes for 11 years, we don’t really know why, our climate science is uncertain, our predictive computer models are limited, but we’re certain we’ll see more frequent and intense hurricanes soon because of increased CO2 emissions.’

What’s embarrassing is that adults embrace such a cartoonish perception of our global heat and moisture distribution system, aka the climate system we depend on for everything.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Shining light on NC-20 Burton's devious distortions

In this post I'm getting back to looking at Dave 'NC-20' Burton's narrative.  We've been having a bit of a debate over at the comments section of WUNC's article by Dave Dewitt titled, "The Changing Carolina Coast: Managing the Threat of Rising Water."   Dave jumps around a lot so I'm focusing on specific quotes.  In this case I want to answer some of his responses to my previous post.  

In that write up I included many links to sources indicating observed accelerating sea level rise, but NC-20 keeps trying to drag attention back to the last century and what he fancies "insignificant" sea level rise.  He also makes much of "no coastal Sea Level acceleration," but he leaves out all the details since they would undermine his claims.  I chose to look at those details and learn.  In this post along with my commentary I'll be sharing authoritative sources so the interested can learn and decide for themselves.

Consider our Earth as a real physical entity, it's cryosphere (glaciers, sea ice) have been in a stable condition for the past few thousands of years, since the end of the last ice age.  The documented warming of the past century acted to soften up and fracture that ice mass, like a block of ice left on a warm sidewalk.  Of course melting (and water contribution) is slow during these initial phases of warming!  That's no cause for ignoring what is happening this century. 

Perhaps his biggest deception is making an issue of the stately rate of sea level rise during the last century, then pretending it's a guide to this century.  Such deliberate misperceptions needs to be confronted.  
NC-20  Burton writes:  Thank you, CC  for the links, and for verifying what I told you, even if you apparently didn't read it.

I wrote, "DavidAppell, do you now agree that that graph (of sea-level at Brest, France) shows "no apparent acceleration" since the turn of the 20th century? However, if you use the data all the way back to 1807, there is acceleration, because the rate of sea-level rise accelerated slightly in the late 19th century. Here's the spreadsheet ... Here's the chart …"
For comparison, here's a quote from the Wöppelmann et al paper that you cited:
"Both instrumental records show a roughly coincident increase in the rate of relative sea-level rise around the end of the 19th century."
As you can see, we agree.
"accelerated slightly" - slightly???

In NC-20's cartoon world-view this rather dramatic shift in sea level trend makes no impression at all.  An example of how the bias-filter alters the perception of reality, since it wouldn't do to recognize how dramatic that acceleration actually was.  

Also, please notice, it was no up-tick followed by a drop.  It's been relentlessly uphill ever since.  Thus NC-20 is left with nit-picking the "acceleration rate"  during the previous century with all his might.  All the while doing his best to ignore the observed 
acceleration in our 21st century.

26:00 min. - GRAPH - Global Trend Sea Level, (Reconstruction from EMD residuals)

Examples of the Attack on Science and Rational Constructive Learning

I've had my response to NC-20 Burton nearly ready to post for days now.  But life is busy.  In the meantime, I want to repost an informative article from .  Please notice that while on the one hand the Republican PR machine cries about attacks on their "Free Speech Right", on the other they are ruthlessly playing the legal system to interfere with and at times attack serious scientists who are only trying to do their job as accurately as possible and then to report back on their results.  Things that are their duty.  This Repost from tells a story worth knowing about.  

This is what rational constructive learning built upon fact-based science is up against.  It's frightening, but it is what it is, understand it, deal with it. 

July 7, 2016 by Guest Poster Lauren Kurtz at

Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund(CSLDF), a non-profit that defends scientists against legal attack. CSLDF was founded to fund Dr. Mann’s defense, represented Dr. Maibach, and filed amicus briefs in support of the University of Arizona. Help protect the scientific endeavor by donating to CSLDF, where a trustee is currently matching all donations up to $50,000.

Today’s climate scientists have a lot more to worry about than peer review. Organizations with perverse financial incentives harass scientists with lawsuit after lawsuit, obstructing research and seeking to embarrass them with disclosures of private information.

On June 14th, an Arizona court ruled that thousands of emails from two prominent climate scientists must be turned over to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E), a group that disputes the 97% expert consensus on human-caused climate change and argues against action to confront it. E&E and its attorneys are funded by Peabody CoalArch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources, coal corporations with billions of dollars in revenue. 
Formerly named the American Tradition Institute, E&E has been described as “filing nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research.”

Saturday, July 9, 2016

NC-20 Burton Why Do You Deliberately Misrepresent the Brest Tide Gauge Data?

Dave NC-20 Burton repeatedly claims he's never been shown to be wrong, he also loves claiming that sea level rise has not accelerated over the past century and that Tide Gauges are the gold standard.  One of his favorite Tide Gauges is at Brest, France which dates way back.  With graph in hand Dave claims “As you can see, there's been no apparent acceleration in sea-level rise there in the last hundred years.”

Interestingly when one looks at that graph through a slightly different filter, 
it's not so clear cut at all.  


Here's what happens when scientists do the numbers:

0.42 ± 0.18 mm/year Brest -1800s
1.14 ± 0.18 mm/year Brest -1900s
0.39 ± 0.17 mm/year Liverpool -1800s
1.22 ± 0.25 mm/year Liverpool - 1900s

Tide gauge datum continuity at Brest since 1711: France's longest sea-level record
Guy Wöppelmann, Nicolas Pouvreau, Alain Coulomb, Bernard Simon, Philip L. Woodworth

Now that I've given the punchline, let me back track and focus on one of the important differences between Dave Burton's approach and my own "process".  

I love to learn, I want to learn from my mistakes, I thirst for more and better information to help develop my overall understanding of this Earth I love and that we depend on for everything.  On the other hand, NC-20 Burton is into repeating agenda focused PR soundbites and refusing to listen to anything anyone else is trying to explain.  Never allowing new information to percolate and be incorporated into his overall world view.  
We'll start with Burton's spiel:

By far the greatest part of the anthropogenic contribution to GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s. What matters for validating or falsifying the hypothetical causal relationship between GHG levels and sea-level rise is what happened to the rate of sea-level rise in response to the addition of all that CO2 & CH4.

The answer is, nothing at all. Increasing CO2 from under 310 ppmv to ~400 ppmv, and increasing CH4 from 1.2 ppmv to 1.8 ppmv, has caused no increase at all in the rate of sea-level rise.